Шалагинов Денис_RESUME_04052018 (Проблемы имманентизма в нестабильных онтологиях), страница 4

Full recognition is achievable only in the final synthesis, inother words – at the end of history, the idea of which occupies an important placein Kojeve’s philosophy, but is not fully consistent with the aforementionedunattainability of death in Heidegger. This prompted followers of Kojeve toradicalization of his model. One of the significant attempts in this direction wasSartrian. It was most fully represented in the main work of the philosopher, entitledquite in the spirit of Kojeve’s “dualistic ontology” – “Being and nothing”.Developing the idea of the unsolvable nature of negativity, Sartre reworked thetraditional ontological question of “being-as-being” into the theory of “being-as-lack”31. The philosopher divided reality into two poles – being-for-itself(consciousness) and being-in-itself (nature), giving the first the status of “agent ofnegativity”, and the second – again in accordance with the Kojevian teachings –positivity, identity.

The constitutional element of the human dimension ofexistence is negation, which makes it possible to speak of “humanization ofnothing”32. Because consciousness is always the consciousness of something, it isdoomed to incompleteness, because it inevitably retains the need for an externalobject. Thus, in the “heart” of the subject – there is lack of identity.

Moreover, it isuseless to fight this, because the imaginary future integrity is unattainable. Thefoundation of being cannot be found. For Sartre, like Kojeve, negativity and lackare productive, not nihilistic categories. The conception of the other importantfollower of Kojeve – Jacques Lacan – can be described (of course, very generally)as a kind of fusion of Freudianism, Kojevian dialectics and the idea of “lack ofbeing”. It is also necessary to mention the name of Georges Bataille, who, in myopinion, occupies a very unusual place in the ontology of lack, as will be discussedin more detail below.

Since the 1960s, the admiration for Hegelian dialectic hasbeen replaced by its harsh criticism. In the previously praised system was found anunexpected dimension: if earlier in the ideas of Hegel intellectuals found the wayto gradual liberation, now the dynamic triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis wasaccused of a kind of violence, because the dialectical movement to elimination ofcontradictions in the synthesis could be read as the dissolution of others in ourown, in other words – the potential colonization.

The possibility of such anapproach to the interpretation of dialectics was noted long before the 60s (back in1929) one of the brightest representatives of Russian philosophy Mikhail Bakhtin,who spoke very negatively about the ideas of Hegel: “The single becoming spirit,understood in a Hegelian way, can give rise to nothing but a philosophicalmonologue. Least of all, on the basis of monistic idealism can flourish a plurality                                                            31Marchart O. The Absence at the Heart of Presence: Radical Democracy and the ‘Ontology of Lack’ // RadicalDemocracy between Abundance and Lack.

Manchester, 2005. P. 20.32Decombes V. Sovremennaya frantsuzskaya filosofiya. M., 2000. P. 15. of non-conjoint minds”33. Another influential critic of the Hegelianism is therepresentative of the Frankfurt school of social research, Theodor Adorno; heoffers the project of negative dialectic that is not so much an alternative to theHegelian, as its radicalization. For Adorno, Hegel’s dialectic is not negativeenough – it should be replaced by negative dialectic as a way of thinking that mostsuccessfully reveals contradictions in [social] reality. Adorno criticizes synthesis asan act of identifying thinking and doubts the truth of systematic knowledge as aform of totality. Another important figure in the process of revision of Hegeliandialectics, in my opinion, is Gilbert Simondon, who opposed his theory ofbecoming to the one that was developed in the system of the German philosopher:if for Hegel contradiction of thesis and antithesis is removed by negation, and thesynthesis involves negation of negation, due to which development passes to adifferent level of complexity, then Simondon declares the absence of the result ofsynthesis, in fact, there is only a “synthetic complementary relationship”, whereasthe actual synthesis is never carried out: the absence of a “synthetic rhythm”, thus,is tantamount to the absence of a basis for a new thesis.

In other words, Simondonunderstands becoming not as an ascent to a certain goal, but as a permanentprocess of invention, involving the formulation and solution of problems inconditionsofmetastability34.ThisapproachisextremelyclosetoBergsonist/Deleuzian position applying for complete elimination of negativity as afalse idea35.

This step is already visible in the early works of Deleuze, whocriticizes dialectics because the Hegelian logic, according to him, is “the logic oflack replenishment”. Moreover, an important place in the system of the Frenchphilosopher takes the motive for abandoning the dualism of the subject and object,in other words – breaking with the anthropological position that was occupied by                                                            33Bakhtin M. M. Problemy tvorchestva Dostoevskogo.

Kiev, 1994. P. 37 (P. 231).Kurtov M. Genezis graficheskogo polzovatelskogo interfeisa. K teologii koda. SPb., 2014. P. 55.35About ”a false concept of negation, emptiness and nothingness”, and negation as affirmation of the second order:“no idea will come out of negation, because it has no other content than the affirmative judgment which it judges»:Bergson H. Tvorcheskaya evoljtsiya. M., 2015. P. 198-215; Deleuze G. Empirizm I subjektivnost: opyt ochelovecheskoi prirode po Yumu. Kriticheskaya filosofiya Kanta: ucheniye o sposobnostjah.

Bergsonizm. Spinoza.M., 2001. P. 229-249. Deleuze emphasizes the Simondon’s substitution of negation to the problematic (Deleuze G.On Gilbert Simondon // Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974. New York, 2004. P. 88). 34Kojeve, Sartre and Lacan, because, according to Deleuze, consistent ontology isthat one, which is based on the idea of unity of being, incompatible with theanthropological theory of negativity, clearly separating the cognizing subject fromthe cognitive object36. This “protest” against the dualism leads to the emergence ofthe ontology of abundance, which contingent date of birth is 1972, i. e. the year ofpublication of Deleuze/Guattari’s treatise “Anti-Oedipus”. This work presented aninnovative conception of desire – non-Hegelian and non-existentialist.

Its essenceis expressed in the following formula: “not desire is underpinned by needs, butrather needs stem from the desire”37. In other words, Deleuze/Guattari’s theoryproclaims the ontological priority of the abundance and positivity over lack andnegativity. This inversion is evidential attempt to break with Hegel, however, inthe opinion of Marchart, at the level of argumentation it is very difficult tounderstand what “phenomenon” is really “prior”, so the only thing left is to chooseone of the warring positions38.However, I do not see my task as maintaining a dispute over what is “valid”or “original”, which, due to the terminology used, risks collapsing into ametaphysical register. My choice [of abundance] is justified by the features ofpost/Deleuzian philosophy.

If Heidegger, following Husserl, who claimed thetranscendent character of the world, understood the being-in-the-world astranscendence, which could not impose a mark on all of the theorists whoseconcepts were inspired by the phenomenological direction (including Kojeve,Sartre and Derrida), one of the identifying characteristics of the ontology ofabundance is a strict immanentism.Deleuzian immanentist philosophy of Becoming has its politicalimplications: thinking in terms of the fixed entities – means to come from thepriority of identity, or simply tautology, but “the tautology – is always the ideology                                                            36Gutting G. Thinking the Impossible.

French Philosophy Since 1960. New York, 2011. P. 39.Deleuze G., Guattari F. Anti-Oedipus: Kapitalizm I shizofreniya. Ekaterinburg, 2008. P. 50.38Marсhart O. The Absence at the Heart of Presence: Radical Democracy and the ‘Ontology of Lack’ // RadicalDemocracy between Abundance and Lack. Manchester, 2005. P. 26. 37that rationalizes the system of government»39. This is one of the reasons forinterest in immanentism, manifested by such socio-political thinkers as AntonioNegri and Michael Hardt, Maurizio Lazzarato, Franco “Bifo” Berardi, PaoloVirno, Peter Sloterdijk and many others. This research analyzes their conceptionsaredemonstratesthatsuchphilosophicalmovementsaspostoperaism,accelerationism and the social philosophy of Sloterdijk are not simply influencedby Deleuzianizm, but represent specific products of translation of his ideas into thelanguage of socio-political theory. One should not forget that the task ofphilosophy, according to Deleuze/Guattari, is “resistance to the present”, so in theend of my work I turn to the problematics of “subversive affirmation” to show howthis tactic embodies immanentist ideas, particularly associated with abundance andhumor, in political/aesthetic practices.