The community of solitary walkers

S. Prozorov
{"title":"The community of solitary walkers","authors":"S. Prozorov","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474449342.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 addresses a recent reinterpretation of Rousseau by Peter Sloterdijk, which prioritizes his late work The Reveries of the Solitary Walker as politically more important than the theory of sovereignty in The Social Contract. In contrast to Sloterdijk Prozorov reads these two works as by no means opposed but affirming the same thing, the sheer existence of the subject, individual or collective, subtracted from all particular predicates. It is this mode of subtractive subjectivity that Rousseau wishes to oppose to partial interests in society that perpetually threaten to corrupt the general will. Prozorov then shows how the contemporary critique of biopolitics relies on the same logic of subtraction, which necessarily leads it into the same aporia as it did Rousseau: if democracy is only conceivable through the subtraction from all particularism, it ends up unsustainable and indefensible in the face of this very particularism.","PeriodicalId":332955,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Biopolitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratic Biopolitics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474449342.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chapter 2 addresses a recent reinterpretation of Rousseau by Peter Sloterdijk, which prioritizes his late work The Reveries of the Solitary Walker as politically more important than the theory of sovereignty in The Social Contract. In contrast to Sloterdijk Prozorov reads these two works as by no means opposed but affirming the same thing, the sheer existence of the subject, individual or collective, subtracted from all particular predicates. It is this mode of subtractive subjectivity that Rousseau wishes to oppose to partial interests in society that perpetually threaten to corrupt the general will. Prozorov then shows how the contemporary critique of biopolitics relies on the same logic of subtraction, which necessarily leads it into the same aporia as it did Rousseau: if democracy is only conceivable through the subtraction from all particularism, it ends up unsustainable and indefensible in the face of this very particularism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
独行者的社区
第二章讲述了彼得·斯洛特戴克最近对卢梭的重新诠释,他优先考虑卢梭晚期的作品《独行者的幻想》,认为它在政治上比《社会契约论》中的主权理论更重要。与斯洛特戴克不同的是,普罗佐罗夫读这两部作品时并不认为它们是对立的,而是肯定了同一件事,即主体的绝对存在,无论是个人的还是集体的,都是从所有特定的谓词中减去的。卢梭想要反对的,正是这种减法主体性的模式,因为社会中的部分利益,会永远威胁到公意的败坏。然后普罗佐洛夫展示了当代对生命政治的批判是如何依赖于同样的减法逻辑的,这必然导致它像卢梭一样陷入同样的恐慌:如果民主只能通过对所有特殊主义的减法来想象,那么在面对这种特殊主义时,它最终是不可持续和站不住站的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The community of solitary walkers Towards an experimental analytics of government Is there a democratic form of life? Biopower and the politics of contingency Rousseau’s aporia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1