The Splendor of Creation: Kant, Nietzsche, Lacan
\nAlenka Zupan\u010di\u010d 1999 UMBRA<\/p>\n
Previously we took the example of \u201cpurposiveness without purpose,\u201d which might be slightly misleading since we encounter the same term (purpose) on both sides. A better example is that of \u201cpleasure without interest<\/span>,\u201d or, in another translation, \u201cliking devoid of all interest,<\/span>\u201d which will help us to clarify in detail how this \u201cinterior exclusion\u201d actually works and what its consequences are.<\/p>\n The notion of \u201cpleasure devoid of all interest\u201d also has the advantage of becoming, since Nietzsche\u2019s critique, the emblem of the Kantian conception of the beautiful and the topos of contemporary philosophical debate concerning the notion of the beautiful (and of art in general). […]<\/p>\n But what exactly does the formula \u201cpleasure devoid of all interest<\/span>\u201d aim at?<\/p>\n Kant calls the pleasure that is still linked with interest (or need) \u201cagreeableness.\u201d If I declare an object to be agreeable, this judgment \u201carouses a desire for objects of that kind.\u201d This does not mean that with the next stage, the stage of the beautiful, or \u201cdevoid of all interest,\u201d this desire disappears \u2014 the point is that it becomes irrelevant.<\/p>\n Let us clarify this with one of Kant\u2019s own examples, the \u201cgreen meadows.\u201d<\/p>\n Here it is the feeling itself, the sensation that becomes the object (of judgment). \u201cGreen meadows are beautiful\u201d is a judgment of taste, an aesthetic judgment, which is neither \u201cobjective\u201d nor \u201csubjective.\u201d This judgment could be called \u201cacephalous<\/span>\u201d or \u201cheadless<\/span>,\u201d since the \u201cI,\u201d the \u201chead\u201d of the judgment is replaced, not with some impersonal objective neutrality as in statements of the type \u201cthe meadows are green,\u201d but with the most intimate part of the subject (how the subject feels itself affected by a given representation as object<\/em>).<\/p>\n \u201cDevoid of all interest\u201d means precisely that we no longer refer to the existence of the object (green meadows), but only to the pleasure that it gives us.<\/strong><\/p>\n Life must involve passion (engagement, zeal, enthusiasm, interest), but this passion must always be accompanied by an additional \u201cyes<\/span>\u201d\u2014to it, otherwise it can only lead to nihilism. This \u201cyes<\/span>\u201d cannot be but detached from the object<\/span>, since it refers to the passion itself.<\/p>\n The great effort of Nietzsche\u2019s philosophy is to think and articulate the two together. \u201cYes\u201d to the \u201cyes\u201d<\/span><\/strong> cannot be the final stage in the sense that it would suffice in itself. Alone, it is no longer a \u201cyes\u201d to a \u201cyes,\u201d but just plain \u201cyes\u201d\u2014the \u201cee-ahh,\u201d the donkey\u2019s sound of inane, empty enjoyment.<\/p>\n But how exactly does this couple function? We know that any real involvement excludes simultaneous contemplation of it.<\/p>\n And yet they must be somehow simultaneous, they must always walk in a pair (i.e. constitute one subjective figure), otherwise we would not be dealing with the \u201caffirmation of affirmation,\u201d but with two different types of affirmation.<\/p>\n The figure that corresponds to this criterion is the figure of creation<\/em><\/span><\/strong> \u2014 or, in other terms, the figure of sublimation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The creation is never a creation of one thing, but always the creation of two things that go together<\/strong>: the something and the void, or, in Lacan\u2019s terms, the object<\/strong><\/span> and the Thing<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n This is the point of Lacan\u2019s insisting on the notion of creation ex nihilo, and of his famous example of the vase: the vase is what creates the void<\/span><\/strong>, the emptiness inside<\/em> <\/strong>it.<\/p>\n The arch-gesture of art is to give form to the nothing<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n Creation<\/strong><\/span> is not something that is situated in the (given) space or that occupies a certain space, it is the very creation of the space as such<\/strong>.<\/p>\n With every creation, a new space gets created.<\/p>\n Another way of putting this would be to say that every creation has the structure of a veil. It operates as a veil that creates a \u201cbeyond,\u201d announces it, and makes it almost palpable in the very tissue of the veil.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Splendor of Creation: Kant, Nietzsche, Lacan Alenka Zupan\u010di\u010d 1999 UMBRA Previously we took the example of \u201cpurposiveness without purpose,\u201d which might be slightly misleading since we encounter the same term (purpose) on both sides. A better example is that of \u201cpleasure without interest,\u201d or, in another translation, \u201cliking devoid of all interest,\u201d which will … Continue reading “zupancic UMBRA pt 2 extimit\u00e9 drive Thing”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[125,24,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drive","category-lacan","category-zizek"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12114"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12114\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12123,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12114\/revisions\/12123"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n