Machines, Spide s and Buccanee s
WALKING AROUND THE SUN. No es on Eu ope. The Dogma ic Sleep.
14
S aa liche Akademie de Bildenden Küns e Ka ls uhe
A Academy Ka ls uhe, Ka ls uhe, Ge many
Eu oame icanism
Subjec & Chaos
Ma cus S einweg
Happiness, Con inemen , Enligh enmen , Cou age, Pa hos and S inging Eyes.
KEYWORDS
Philosophy always uni es he di ided: he ini e and he in ini e, he a homable
and he un a homable, c ea ed and c ea o , Man and God. Whene e I hink, my hough
uni es wha mus emain di ided: immanence and anscendence, consis ency and incon-
sis ency, Eu opean o iginali y and Ame ican ho izon ali y. A and philosophy indica e he
con ingen na u e o eali y. They gene a e esis ance agains es ablished eali ies and he
disposi i es ha o ganize hem. Thei aim is no o lee om eali y bu a he o in ensi y
con ac wi h eali y by main aining a dis ance om i .
ABSTRACT
EUROAMERICANISM SUBJECT & CHAOS
Ma cus S einweg 15
Happiness F ançois Jullien demon-
s a ed ha he idea o happiness was among he
leas ques ioned p emises in Wes e n hough .
As long as his idea emains ied o a ision o a
goal in o de o insc ibe i sel in a eleology wi h a
happy ending, i will belong o he Eu opeanism
o he happy li e, which “singled ou he idea o
happiness om he con inui y o p ocess and se
i o h as ‘ he desi able’ pa excellence.” As always,
Jullien app oaches he decons uc ion o one o
he co e ca ego ies o he Eu opean his o y o ideas
om he ou side, aking a de ou h ough China,
which did no unde go he sepa a ion o day- o-
day li ing and he desi e o happi ness in o de o
nu u e li e independen o happiness. Nu u -
ing li e away om happi ness means li ing i wi h-
ou any pa icula idea o happiness, beyond he
d ama u gy o un ul illed desi e, wi hou he o -
man iciza ion o happiness. One hing ha ’s no a-
ble abou his compa ison be ween Eu opean
goal-o ien edness/pu pose ulness and Chinese
pu poselessness/goallessness is ha i lea es
unmen ioned he eme gence o a concep ion o
happiness wi hin he ield o Wes e n philoso-
phy ha is eed om he ca ego ies o sense,
om de e mina ion, and om elos. Nie zsche
eac i a ed he an ique and Spinozis he i age
o an imma nence o bea i udo in he ma e ialis-
ic ho izon o exis ence. Spinozian/Nie zschean
a i ma ionism, saying yes o li e in i s nonli ing,
would be ano he s ain o Wes e n hough ha
loca es happiness wi hin i s incommensu abil-
i y — ins ead o cons uing i beyond li e. Being
happy simply means li ing. The e is no li e beyond
li e, beyond i s iolence and nonli ing.
Con inemen Has anyone e e done
mo e iolence o logos han o con ine i in he
p ison known as logic? And wha i speech, lang-
uage, o eason known as logos we e con ic ed o
he inconsis ency o i s p omise, known as logic?
Among he e ics, an exac ingness caused by excess
is p ope o hough , which emp s logos o b eak
wi h i s p inciples. Thinking means showing logos
i s own agili y.
Enligh enmen Should we call en ligh -
enmen he hing ha sp eads “ ace elemen s o
eason ... h ough he wo ld,” o is i a he “ ace
elemen s o chaos ... ha b ing o h enligh en-
men ?” Alexande Kluge di ec s his ques ion a
Heine Mülle , who ecognizes ha he “pu pose
o in elligence” is “ o c ea e chaos” in o de o
“ques ion all illusions, all coali ions, and all alli-
ances.” Ul ima ely, he poin is o complica e
he opposi ion be ween eason and chaos. Wha
else is eason doing han b inging chaos in o he
wo ld, and wha does chaos p oduce i no he
hype - easonable ques ioning o his chaos o
eason, which is a ionalis ic o ali a ianism?
The dialec ic o enligh enmen causes eason and
chaos o in e ac in a way ha does no p i ilege
ei he side. We’ e go en used o desc ibing he
bi h o logos ou o chaos o my h as he emanci-
pa ion o hough om he i a ional. A he same
ime, we know ha he eme gence o eason in he
p e a ional sphe e o chaos ep esen ed a iolen
e en ha gene a ed chao ic e ec s. T ansla ed
o he sys em o na u e/cul u e, i means ha we
dis ance ou sel es om he my h o a cul u e ha
eplaces “wild” na u e, and canno simply swi ch
o e o an opposing ideology o na u e obbed o
i s “innocence” by cul u e. Na u e isn’ wild, pu e,
o innocen ; no is cul u e ci ilizing o iolen . To
o mula e i as p imi i ely as possible: one isn’
be e han he o he . Na u e isn’ good, cul u e
isn’ bad; no ice e sa. Enligh enmen begins
wi h he suspension o hese an h opomo phisms.
A icula ing onesel beyond good and e il is pa
o he complexi y. The in e es -o ien ed, s a e-
gic, o i a ional iolence, b u ali y, and ho o
ha happen in he name o (gene ally ascis ic)
na u alism and (ideological, eligious) cul u al-
ism is he p oduc o he subjec ’s exi om he
dialec ic o enligh enmen . Ins ead o ac ing a
he le el o he wo ld’s complexi y, i educes his
Machines, Spide s and Buccanee s
WALKING AROUND THE SUN. No es on Eu ope. The Dogma ic Sleep.
16
Cou age In Kan ’s essay Wha Is Enligh -
enmen ? (1784), Michel Foucaul ecognized a
“call o cou age.” The enowned challenge —
add essed o all o humani y — o eme ge om
imma u i y implies a sape e aude: he cou age o
hink, he emancipa ion om subjec ion o he
hough o o he s. Kan is ouching on he human
abili y o become conscious o one’s own he e -
onomy in o de o g adually ee onesel om
i . In he con ex o u he conside a ions ha
s ay om Kan , Foucaul spoke o he “cou age
o u h,” which is an amoun o his de ini ion
o philosophical hough . The cou age o u h
u ns ou o be he cou age o hinking. The ac o
hink ing, which includes p ocessuali y and in e -
minabili y, includes wo king on he u h, he
“analysis o he ela ions be ween he subjec and
u h: ha o ela ions o powe and hei ole
in he in e play be ween he subjec and u h.”
The cou age o u h mus ques ion i s ins umen-
aliza ion and usion wi h es ablished powe . Fa
om dismiss ing u h as a me aphysical concep
— wi h and wi hou Kan — Foucaul de ines he
ask o his hough as u h analysis. Cou age
demands his analysis, i only because, as a c i -
ical p ojec , i canno us any simple solu ions
— as a as, o example, he alli ance be ween
knowledge and powe goes. S ic ly speaking, i
can’ us any hing. The cou age o u h is inhe -
en o he adi ion o enligh enmen , no only in
he o m o a challenge, bu also as a p oblem and
apo ia. You could call Foucaul he hinke o his
inhe ence. His en i e body o hough exp esses
consciousness o he apo ia o hough conce n-
ing u h. This is why i is hough — because
hinking doesn’ mean sea ching o solu ions.
Thinking means wo k ing h ough p oblems ha
complexi y in a o o one-sidedness ha i calls
u h o jus ice. I i made sense o speak o u h o
jus ice in his con ex , hen he dialec ic o enligh -
enmen would each us ha hey a e on he side o
complexi y a he han one-sidedness.
Pa hos Thinking ha hinks i sel — he
sel - e lec ion o he logos, he cogi o, o he subjec
— implies he e i able pa hos o eason. The e
is no doc ine o eason ha is no a doc ine o
emo ion. The easoning subjec canno hink i sel
wi hou being con on ed wi h i s own agmen-
a ion, he pain ha belongs o sel -awa eness.
The Ancien G eek e b páschein means o su e
o o endu e — and wha is su e ing o he han an
expe ience ha pushes he subjec o i s limi s?
Pa hos exp esses he expe ience o un esol able
con lic , which is why he e is no philosophy ha
isn’ pa he ic in his sense. I may be a ma e o he
disc ee pa hos o ma hema ical hinking, o he
lines o a gumen pushed o hei b eaking poin .
I may be he polemic pa hos o eason un io ,
which we a e amilia wi h om Nie zsche’s inal
books and A aud’s s iden in ec i es ( om his
“animal is ic and supe human, sh ieking, sh ill,
b u al” speech). The pa hos o d y subjec s, ab-
s ac ion, sob ie y, and coldness also exp esses
he pain o hough , in which hough “loses i sel ,”
as Hegel says. Thinking means ge ing los again
and again. The sel g inds i sel down by i s con-
lic s ins ead o syn hesizing hem dialec ically.
The mo emen o eason aces i s es lessness.
Thinking is a passion ha makes he subjec em-
ble in he ace o u hs ha unde mine i s eali ies.
S inging eyes To look u h in he ace
— ha is he cliché o hough because i can
only do so in he ace o a u h ha emains ace-
less. “Wha hing,” asks Jean-Luc Nancy, “can be
looked a di ec ly in he ace? I look ing some hing
‘in he ace’ means seeing i s ‘ u h’ o ‘e idence,’
hen he e is ne e any di ec ace- o- ace. E e y
elude sol abili y. Kan was also clea on his.
The subjec is bound. Tha ’s wha he subjec ’s
humani y consis s in: being in con ac wi h ques-
ions and p oblems ha i can nei he dismiss
no sol e. And ha ’s wha equi es cou age.
EUROAMERICANISM SUBJECT & CHAOS
Ma cus S einweg 17
ace is a bedaz zlemen , e ible and ma elous.”
We know ha Lacan calls he aceless ace o
u h he eal. F eud speaks o he unconscious,
Heidegge o being ha collapses in o no hing-
ness as nonbeing. The e is no philoso phe who
hasn’ ound hei own e m o he u h wi h-
ou a ace. Pla o e okes he image o he shin-
ing sun, he bu ning ligh ha s ings he eyes.
The sun in lames and i i a es he subjec . I i
does no cause blindness, hen, a leas , i bedaz-
zles. Like F eud’s unconscious, Lacan’s eal, and
Heidegge ’s being, does no gi e o i sel ully; i
wi hd aws and wi h holds i sel . I doesn’ di ulge
i sel di ec ly. The subjec communica es wi h
hese en i ies only a he cos o ela i e blind-
ness. The u h gene a es a subjec wi h s ing-
ing eyes. You can also e e o “ eddened eyes,” as
Ranciè e does in a commen a y on Deleuze. Wi h
Deleuze, chaos blinds he subjec and causes i o
slide. Wha Deleuze and Gua a i, oge he wi h
Nie zsche, call chaos can be in e p e ed as a ans-
la ion o he Lacanian eal in o he disposi i e o
immanen hough . The planes o immanence lie
like a il e o a “sc een” o e chaos. They mu le
he con ac wi h no hingness. Jus as he an ique
logos al eady ep esen ed a neu alizing igu e
o he alogon, he immanence il e lies o e he
aceless chaos o u h in o de o gi e i a ace
ha s ings less he subjec ’s eyes. To look u h in
he ace means assen ing o being blinded, which
p omises some minimum o insigh . This pe haps
impossible p omise is he p om ise ha philoso-
phy makes o i sel .
Bo n in 1971, Ma cus S einweg li es and wo ks as a philosophe in Be lin. He is a P o esso a he A
Academy Ka ls uhe. His ecen books include: Du as (wi h Rosema ie T ockel, Be lin: Me e 2008);
Poli ik des Subjek s (Zü ich/Be lin: Diaphanes 2009); Apo ien de Liebe (Be lin: Me e 2010); Kuns und
Philosophie / A and Philosophy (Cologne: Wal e König: 2012); Philosophie de Übe s ü zung (Be lin:
Me e 2013); Inkonsis enzen (Be lin: Ma hes & Sei z 2015); E idenz e o (Be lin: Ma hes & Sei z 2015);
G amsci Thea e (Be lin: Me e 2016); Spli e (Be lin: Ma hes & Sei z 2016); Subjek und Wah hei (Be lin:
Ma hes & Sei z 2018). Some o his books a e published in english by The MIT P ess.