« Spinoza on Genesis in the Ethics (and a note on the History of Deism) | Main | On Civilization »

01/16/2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Justin

Damn! A rare typo crept into my post. That should of course be "Mohammed est vengé". I'm going to go change it on my site right now. If you're willing, you might change it here too. For the rest, I'll have to think about it... J.

Justin

Mohammed is of course not a fictional character, but the historical character in question feeds the fictions, or fantasies, of the killers, much as Charles de Gaulle stands in relation to the eponymous 'Charlie' in the name of the magazine.

Eric Schliesser

I have changed my post to reflect the changes in yours. (I have also changed one of my footnotes.)

Steven Vanden Broecke

When 16th-century Calvinists engaged in iconoclasm, they weren't purifying the real from some set of things which had now become merely 'symbolic'. They were engaging in a symbolic act of sacrifice, through which they hoped to reconnect to the real in their symbolic order. Saying that the killers act upon 'fictions' of 'fantasies' fed by the real, is to misunderstand the way in which religion prioritizes relations to the real over its representation or determination.

Ed Hackett

The fact that there is no distinction between the symbol and the real... You write this in Baudrillard's shadow.

Eric Schliesser

Ed, I write in the shadows of many (hence the need for rapid impressions and digressions)! There are distinctions between the symbol and the real; but they should not be seen as contraries.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad