Of Jews and Animals (The Frontiers of Theory)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Investigates the relationship between philosophy, art and their presentation of both Jews and animalsBy developing his own conception of the 'figure' Andrew Benjamin has written an innovative and provocative study of the complex relationship between philosophy, the history of painting and their presentation of both Jews and animals.As Benjamin makes clear the 'Other' is never abstract. He underscores the means by which the ethical imperative, arising from the way the history of philosophy and the history of art are constructed, shows us how to respond to an already identified, even if unacknowledged, determinant other.
For in representational terms since to do so would be both to remember animality and in so doing recall a founding form of relationality (a relation understood as negotiation rather than one positioned by the without relation). There cannot be a sign or series of signs that could be taken to signify ‘animal spirits’ precisely because they are not defined in terms of location but in terms of movement. What this then means is what the system needed to work without, namely the body, thus animality –.
Nicht) leads to a relation of having and not having and thus, for Heidegger, to the form of ‘poverty’ that defines the animal’s relation to the world. However, in this instance the question of the animal’s apparent ‘poverty’ is not central. The second point that needs to be made is of greater relevance. Earlier, in §47, Heidegger has identified the ‘animal’s way of being’ (seine Art zu sein) with ‘what we call life’ (wir das ‘leben’ kennen). If M2093 - BENJAMIN TEXT.indd 38 4/3/10 12:19:07.
Does not admit of original difference and therefore does not have a determining effect on the quality of Dasein. Hence while bodies figure they do not figure bodily. The body is positioned therefore within a form of relation that is determined by what has already been designated as a without relation. The without relation is to the presence of the body as the site of an original sense of bodily difference. This is, of course, another interpretation of Heidegger’s position in which moods take us.
Be a sense of sovereignty. Note that it would not be life as opposed to death. Death’s opposition, the death that is productive, is ‘nothingness’. The conception of sovereignty that pits itself against this nothingness (and in so doing refuses a space in which life as productive could in fact be thought), would not be the form defined by a mastery, one remaining ignorant of death, but the sense that worked with its necessity. Again, that necessity is neither the conflation of death with mortality.
Conflation of Jew and animal, but that shift in philosophical thinking in which particularity was no longer excised in the name of the universal. Allowing for this eventuality would be the consequence of having introduced the animal, as it is the animal that presents this set-up as a possibility. The introduction would be the staging of an ongoing relation. (Moreover, it would be a relation structured neither by absence nor by privation.) Beginning to understand the consequences of defining.