speculations v aesthetics ebook

5/25/2018 Speculations v Aesthetics eBook

1/475


2/475

Aeshecs n he 21sCenury

Speculaons V


3/475

nbsarc 2014

[email protected]

ERidvan AskinPaul J. EnnisAndreas HglerPhilipp Scheighauser

-: -13: 978-0692203163

2327-803

Cover image by Blanca RegoUnled, Ilpo Vsnen[Rase-Noon, 20 o 2000 sees]

20 o 2000 consiss o 20 minues o experimenal music mean o be

played during he las 20 minues o he 20h cenury.Images generaed rom sound files. No ediion, jus auomaic daa bending.1. Save sound file as ra2. Open ra in graphics ediing program

Designed by Thomas Gokey

v 1.0

puncum books brooklyn, ny


4/475

Acknowledemens

InroduconAeshes ae he Speulae un

Rdvan Ask, Andreas Hgler, and Phlp Schweghauser

P : T A T

Non-Phenomenologcal TouhSeven Shavo

Beauy, he Wll o Power, and Le as ArworkAesheo-Speulae Realsm Nezshe and Whehead

Teodor Leber and Krsen Vog

Sellars Conra Deleuze on Inue Knowlede

Maja Jelaa

No Kan, No NowAnohe Suble

Clae Colebrook

Speculae Aeshecs and Objec-Orened Inquy (OOI)N. Kahere Hayles

Acual Quales o Imagnae TsNoes owads an Obje-Oened Lear Teor

Jon Cogburn and Mark Allan Ohm

Speculae ExperiensWha Sondon and Haman Indduae ogehe?

Mguel Penas Lpez

5

6

40

57

92

127

158

180

225


5/475

P : T T A

Greenber, Duchamp, and he Nex Avan-GardeGraham Harman

No Objecs so Much As ImaesA Response o Gaham Hamans Geenbeg, Duhamp, and he Nex Avan-Gade

Beta Funcke

Sraegc InvsblyTe Zeo Po o Modensm and he Avan-Gade

Tomas Gokey

Te Anxousness o Objecs and Arworks 2(Iso)Mophsm, An-Lealsm and Pesenness

Rober Jackson

Te Alen Aeshec o Speculae Realsm, or, HowInerpreaon Los he Batle o Maeraly and HowComorable hs Is o HumansRobero Sianowsk

Ar and Guerrlla MeaphyscsGaham Haman and Aeshes as Fs Phlosophy

Francs Halsall

Imaes I Canno SeeMagdalena Wsnowska

DisegnoA Speulae Consus Inepeaon

Sjoerd van uen

251

275

286

311

359

382

411

434


6/475

5

Acknowledemens

T SPECULATIONSgrew out of the conferenceAesheis in he s Cenurheld in Basel in Sepember 2012, generously unded by heSwiss Naional Science Foundaion, he Freiwillige Akade-

mische Gesellschaf Basel, he Universiy o Basels RessorNachwuchsrderung and is James Fenimore Cooper gran.The conerence would no have been possible wihou heinvaluable help o Daniel Allemann, Sixa Quassdor, JasminRindlisbacher and Andrea Ws. The ediors o his issue wouldlike o hank he conribuors o his volume, boh hose whooriginally presened a he conerence and hose who wereno presen in Basel bu agreed o paricipae in his projecor heir commimen and enhusiasm. We would also like

o hank he Speulaonscre or offering heir journal as avenue o publicise he resuls o his projec. We hope hahe reader ill find hem as exciing as e do.

The Universiy o Minnesoa Press generously graned per-mission o include Seven Shaviros Non-PhenomenologicalThough, an excerp rom his orhcoming Te Univese oTngs: On Speulave Realsm.


7/475

6

InroduconAeshecs afer he Speculae urn

Rdvan Askn, Andeas Hgle, and Phlpp Shweghause

Universiy o Basel

Orns

A sensuous cogniion rom aspeculaive realis perspecivemus conend wih he legacy o no only Kans firs criiquebu also his hird.1For a speculaive realis aeshes, Kans

legacy is a crucial oil or o relaed reasons: firs (and hisis he beter-explored argumen), because his radically ani-meaphysical demand ha he objecs mus conorm o ourcogniion is he mos prominen and influenial maniesa-ion o ha Quenin Meillassoux calls correlaionism in

Afe Finiude; second, and more specifically, because Kansaesheic heory is a heory no o objecs bu o he humanresponse o naural and arisic beauy.2Tha Kans aeshe-ics is as unreservedly subjec-cenred as his firs criique

1 The ediors o his special issue ould like o hank Daniel Allemann ordiligenly prooreading he whole issue and his helpul eedback on hisinroducion. Ral Simon, Paul J. Ennis, Jon Cogburn, and Sjoerd van Tuinendeserve special hanks or heir incisive commens on he ex ha ollos.2 Immanuel Kan, Preace o he Second Ediion in Ciique o Pue Reason,rans. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversiyPress, 2003), 110. Quenin Meillassoux,Afe Finiude: An Essay on he Neessio Conngenc, rans. Ray Brassier (London: Coninuum, 2009), 5.


8/475

Introduction

7

becomes immediaely clear i we consider ha he cenralerm in he Ciique o he Powe o Judgemenis ase. Inocusing on his mos crucial noion o eigheenh-cenuryreflecions on ar, Kan joins ello aesheicians o he agein bidding arewell o ono-heological heories o beauyrevolving around noions such as hamonia, onsonania, andinegiaso develop experienially grounded accouns o heproducion and recepion o ar ha employ a wholly differen,subjec-cenred and sensually infleced vocabulary: aesheicidea, aesheic eeling, sensuous cogniion, he imaginaion,genius, he sublime, and ase.3I Kans Copernican revolu-ion and is asserion ha e can cognize o hings a po

only ha e ourselves have pu ino hem relegaed realisepisemology o he margins o philosophical inquiry orover wo cenuries, his heory o aesheic judgmen likewiseshifs our atenion away rom real-world objecs and owardshe subjecs experience.4In a relaed vein, Kans noion obeauy is explicily ani-meaphysical in ha i locaes beauyneiher in arworks correspondence wih a divinely orderedcosmos nor in objecs hemselves. Insead, beauy is in hemind o he beholder; i is somehing we experience: we speak

o he beauiul as i beauy were a propery o he objec andhe judgmen logical (consiuing a cogniion o he objechrough conceps o i), alhough i is only aesheic and con-ains merely a relaion o he represenaion o he objec ohe subjec.5More precisely, he pleasurable experience o

beauy is an effec o he harmonious inerplay o he cogni-ive aculies o undersanding and imaginaion.6Finally, iHarmu Bhme is correc in considering eigheenh-cenuryheories o he sublime as an inegral par o he Enlighen-

3 For a good accoun o his shif, see Monroe C. Beardsleys classicAeshe-s om Classal Geee o he Pesen(Ne York: Macmillan, 1966), 140-208.4 Kan, Preace, 111.5 Immanuel Kan, Ciique o he Powe o Judgmen, rans. Paul Guyer and EricMathes (Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press, 2000), 6, 97.6 See Paul Guyer, Beauy and Uiliy in Eigheenh-Cenury Aesheics,Egheenh-Cenur Sudes(2002), 35:3, 449-50.


9/475

Speculations V

8

mens projec o achieving masery over unruly naure, osubmiting le gand dehosunder human beings cogniiveconrol, hen Kans reflecions on he dynamical sublime, aeeling ha grows ou o he subjecs pleasurable recogniionha is reason ulimaely prevails over awe-inspiring naure,are an inegral par o ha projec.7Monroe C. Beardsley pusi aply: I is our on greaness, as raional beings, ha ecelebrae and enjoy in sublimiy.8

For all hese reasons, hen, Kan has emerged as specula-ive realisms mos prominen oil. Ye any atemp o hinkmeaphysics and aesheics ogeher mus conend wih asecond, equally ormidable opponen, a somewha earlier

philosopher grealy admired by Kan: Alexander GotliebBaumgaren. Kan based his own lecures on meaphysics onwha was hen he German-speaking worlds major reaiseon ha subjecBaumgarensMeaphysia(1739)and heinheried Baumgarens undersanding o aesheic judgmenas aesheic (sensuous) cogniion.

I was Baumgaren who coined he erm aesheics in hisM.A. hesisMediaiones philosophiae de nonnullis ad poemapeinenibus(1735).9The brie definiion he gives here, in

116 o his shor reaise, will come as a surprise o manyreaders o hese pages. In Karl Aschenbrenner and WilliamB. Holhers ranslaion,

Thereore, hngs knownare o be knon by he superior aculy as he

objec o logic; hngs peeved[are o be knon by he inerior aculy,

as he objec] o he science o percepion, or aeshe.10

7 Harmu Bhme, Das Seinerne: Anmerkungen zur Theorie des Erha-

benen aus dem Blick des Menschenremdesen in Das Ehabene: ZwishenGenzeahung und Gssenwahn, ed. Chrisine Priess (Weinheim: VCH, Acahumaniora, 1989), 160-92.8 Beardsley,Aeshes, 219.9 This ex has been published in English ranslaion as Refleions on Poer/

Mediaiones philosophiae de nonnullis ad poema peinenibus, rans. KarlAschenbrenner and William B. Holher (Berkeley: Universiy o CaliorniaPress, 1954).10 Baumgaren, Refleons, 116, 78, original emphases. In he Lain/Greek


10/475

Introduction

9

Baumgarens disincion beween he superior aculy (reason)and he inerior aculy (he senses) corresponds o GotriedWilhelm Leibnizs successive se o differeniaions beweenobscure and clear, conused and disinc, inadequae andadequae, and symbolic and inuiive cogniion. In Leibnizsscheme, in hich he second erm o each pair is alays hepreerred one, reason allows or clear and disinc cogniionwhile he senses allow only or clear and conused cogniion.11In Baumgarens accoun, sensory percepion allows us oknow hings wih clariy bu inuiively and hus wihou heconcepual disincness o reasonwihou, in Baumgarenswords, clariy inensified by disincion.12Wha makes

Baumgarens conribuion excepional in 1735 is ha he noonly joins Leibniz in reusing o ollow Descares ourighdismissal o clear bu conused percepion bu srives o givesensuous cogniion is righul place wihin he philosophicalsysem o raionalism. This comes ou clearly in his beter-known definiion o aesheics in his wo-volumeAesheia(1750/58), a ork ha can righly be called he oundaionalex o modern aesheics. In Jeffrey Barnous ranslaion,

Aesheics, as he heory o he liberal ars, lower-level episemology[gnoseologia ineio], he ar o hinking finely [lierally, beauiully, aspulhe ogand], and he ar o he analogy o reason [i.e., he associa-

original, Sun ergo cognoscenda aculae superiore objecum logices;, . sive . Baumgaren, Refleions,116, 39.11 Gotried Wilhelm Leibniz, Berachungen ber die Erkennnis, dieWahrhei und die Ideen in Haupshifen zu Gundlegung de Philosophie,eil , rans. Arur Buchenau, Philosophische Werke: in vier Bnden, ed. Erns

Cassirer, vol. 1 (Hamburg: Meiner, 1996), 9-15. Leibnizs se o disincionsurher refine he Caresian differeniaion beeen he clear and disincpercepions afforded by reason and he clear bu conused percepions a-orded by he senses. See Descares amous ax example in hisMedaonson Fis Philosophy, rans. Ian Johnson, ed. Andrew Bailey (Peerborough:Broadview Press, 2013), 46-52. See also Ral Simon, Die Idee de Posa: Zu

sheikgeshihe von Baumgaen bis Hegel mi einem Shwepunk bei JeanPaul(Munich: Fink, 2013), 30-31.12 Alexander Gotlieb Baumgaren,shek[Aeshea], rans. Dagmar Mir-bach, 2 vols. (Hamburg: Meiner, 2007), 617, II: 604, our ranslaion.


11/475

Speculations V

10

ive or naural-sign-based capaciy o empirical inerence common

o man and higher animals], is he science o sensuous cogniion.13

Sensuous cogniion, hen, belongs o lower-level episemol-ogy in ha i depends on he inerior aculy o he senses.Bu i is srucured analogous o reason, is subjec o he sameruh condiions as reason (he principle o sufficien reasonand law o nonconradicion),14and accouns or such a greavariey o human experience ha he philosophical radiionrom Descares o Chrisian Wolff has disparaged i a is ownloss. In Baumgarens words, A philosopher is a human beingamong human beings; as such, he is ill-advised o believe ha

such a grea par o human cogniion is unseemly o him.15

Baumgarens valorisaion o he senses and o sensuouscogniion as daring or is ime, especially or a raionalisphilosopher. Ye i is precisely ha boldness which pus hima odds wih he speculaive realis projec. Baumgarens aes-heics appears as subjec-cenred as Kans: boh concepualiseaesheics as a quesion o human consciousness, be i underhe heading o ase or sensuous cogniion. As such, bohappear o be correlaionis hinkers hrough and hrough.

The remainder o his firs secion o our inroducion ar-gues ha his is a hasy judgmen. Le us begin wih Kan, orhose aesheics he argumen has already been made, andhen urn o Baumgaren. Recenly, one o he conribuorso our special issue has made he suggesion ha i is pre-cisely Kans much maligned noion o disineresedness haskeches a ay ou o he correlaionis circle as i describes

13

Jeffrey Barnouw, Feeling in Enlighenmen Aesheics, Sudies in Eigh-eenh-Cenur Culue(1988), 18, 324; he square brackes are Barnous. Inhe Lain original, AESTHETICA (heoria liberalium arium, gnoseologiainerior, ars pulchre cogiandi, ars analogi raionis) es scienia cogniionissensiivae. Baumgaren,Aeshea, 1, I:10.14 See Consanze Peres, Cogniio sensiiva: Zum Verhlnis von Empfindungund Reflexion in A. G. Baumgarens Begrndung der sheikheorie inEmpfindung und Reflexon: En Poblem des . Jahhundes, ed. Hans Krnere al. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1986), 31-39.15 Baumgaren,Aeshea, 6, I:14, our ranslaion.


12/475

Introduction

11

a ay or human beings o relae o he real orld ha doesno subjec i o concepual hough. In Wihou Cieia: Kan,Whiehead, Deleuze, and Aesheis(2009), Seven Shaviro wries,

When I conemplae somehing ha I consider beauiul, I am moved

precisely by ha somehings separaion rom me, is exempion romhe caegories I would apply o i. This is why beauy is a lure, drawing me

ou o mysel and easing me ou o hough The aesheic subjec doesno impose is orms upon an oherwise chaoic ouside world. Raher,his subjec is isel nomed by he orld ouside, a orld ha (in he

words o Wallace Sevens) fills he being beore he mind can hink.16

Kan disinguishes beween hree ypes o pleasurable experi-ence: ha o he agreeable, ha o he good, and ha o hebeauiul. Only he las o hese is disineresed; only hebeauiul is an objec o saisacion wihou any ineres.17Disineresedness here means ha he experience o hebeauiul involves neiher desire or sensual graificaion(as would Emmenaler cheese, which we may find agreeable)nor he saisacion graned by he concepual masery o anobjec in view o is pragmaic purpose (as would a muli-

uncional bike ool, which we may find good because i isuseul).18Shaviro noes ha, unlike he judgmen o he good,he judgmen o he beauiul involves no subsumpion ohe objec under a deerminae concep (he concep o anend in our example o he bike ool). And i is or his reasonha aesheic experience and judgmen gesure beyond hecorrelaionis manra ha, in Meillassouxs ords, e onlyever have access o he correlaion beween hinking and

being, and never o eiher erm considered apar rom he

16 Seven Shaviro, Wihou Cieia: Kan, Whiehead, Deleuze, and Aesheis(Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009), 4-5, 12, original emphasis.17 Kan, Cque o he Powe o Judgmen, 6, 96.18 O course, Kan disinguishes beween wo judgmens o he good; ourexample does no cover he moral good, which is an end in isel. Our un-dersanding o Kans noion o disineresedness is indebed o Paul Guyer,

Disineresedness and Desire in Kans Aesheicism, Te Jounal o Aesheisand A Csm(1978), 36:4, 449-60.


13/475

Speculations V

12

oher.19This is why, in Shaviros reading, he Kan o hehird criique, he Kan ho proposes ha he judgmen oase is no a cogniive judgmen (neiher a heoreical nor apracical one), and hence i is neiher grounded on concepsnor aimed a hem, emerges as a poenial ally o specula-ive realism.20In our volume, i is Francis Halsall ho mosexplicily engages ih he Kanian noion o he judgmeno ase and is relevance o odays debaes wihin specula-ive realis circles.

More generally speaking, quie apar rom eiher Kansreflecions on disineresed pleasure or Graham Harmansprovocaive declaraion ha aesheics becomes firs phi-

losophy, i may be in aesheic hinking ha we should lookor a way ou o he correlaionis pah laid ou by Kans firscriique.21I is his supposiion ha promped us o solicipapers or a special issue on speculaive realis approacheso aesheics in he firs place. And i is ha very same sup-posiion ha invies us o reurn o he origin o aesheics inBaumgaren once more. True, he Baumgarian undersandingo aesheics as he science o sensuous cogniion seems olead us sraigh don he correlaionis road. Bu i does so

only i e disregard he provenance o Baumgarens hink-ing abou sense percepion. Baumgaren as a philosopherrained in he raionalis radiion o Descares, Leibniz, andWolff. As such, he belongs o he very hisory o ideas in whichMeillassoux siuaes his claims concerning he necessiy oconingency: Im a raionalis, and reason clearly demon-sraes ha you can demonsrae he necessiy o laws: so weshould jus believe reason and accep his poin: laws are nonecessaryhey are acs, and acs are coningenhey canchange wihou reason.22And ye, as we will see, Baumgaren

19 Meillassoux,Ae Fnude, 5.20 Kan, Cque o he Powe o Judgmen, 5, 95.21 Graham Harman, On Vicarious Causaion, Collapse(2007), 2, 221.22 Quenin Meillassoux, Time Wihou Becoming, Speculaive Heresy, htp://speculaiveheresy.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/3729-ime_wihou_becom-ing.pd (accessed June 26, 2013).


14/475

Introduction

13

represens a raionalis radiion quie differen rom haevoked by Meillassoux (or Ray Brassier, or ha mater).

In giving he senses heir due, Baumgaren does no subscribeo he eigheenh-cenury empiricis (and hus by definiioncorrelaionis) creed o conemporaneous Briish aeshei-cians such as Francis Hucheson and David Hume. Insead,he srives o esablish a science o sensuous cogniion romwhnhe bounds o raionalis hough. Tha Baumgarensaesheics is ulimaely meaphysical o he core becomescleares in secion o heAesheia (The AbsolueAesheic Sriving or Truh). There, he ries,

Indeed, I believe ha philosophers can now see wih he umos clariyha whaever ormal perecion inheres in cogniion and logical ruhcan be atained only wih a grea loss o much maerial perecion. Forha is his absracion bu loss? By he same oken, you canno bring

a marble sphere ou o an irregular piece o marble ihou losing a

leas as much maerial as he higher value o roundness demands.23

Four paragraphs laer, Baumgaren adds a remarkable ob-servaion:

Above all, he aesheic horizon delighs in hose paricular objecs haexhibi he greaes maerial perecion o aesheicological ruh, in

he individuals and he mos specific o objecs. These are is woods,

is chaos, is mater [sua slva, Chao e maea] ou o hich i chiselshe aesheic ruh ino a orm ha is no enirely perec ye beauiul,always in he atemp o lose as litle maerially perec ruh as possibleand rub off as litle o i or he sake o aseulness.24

Baumgaren has a remarkably srong noion o ruh, hiche have learned o disrus in he ake o Niezsche and hispos-srucuralis heirs (on poenial Niezschean ramifica-ions or speculaive realism, see Theodor Leiber and KirsenVoigs conribuion o his volume). As we will see in he second

23 Baumgaren,Aeshea, 560, I:538, our ranslaion.24 Ibid., 564, I:542, our ranslaion.


15/475

Speculations V

14

secion o his inroducion, i ook Alain Badiou o reurnaesheics o he quesion o ruh. For Baumgaren, sensuouscogniion allows us o glimpse somehing o ha which reasonssriving or absracion and ormal perecion denies us: herichness, mulipliciy, pleniude, and pariculariy o hings,he oods, chaos and mater o he real orld.25Moreprecisely, no only sensuous bu all cogniion is ulimaelybased on wha Baumgaren calls undus animae (he darkground o he soul), which is a reposiory or infiniesimallysmall pre-conscious, unconscious, and hal-conscious sensu-ous percepions (Leibnizspeies peepions) ha ensures hesouls coninuing aciviy even when we sleep and mirrors he

pleniude o he universe.26

For Baumgaren, neiher reasonnor he senses can ever ully access he infinie universe, buhe aesheicological ruh o arworks approaches ha ideal inha i gives orm o he maerial perecion o hings in heirmulipliciy and pariculariy: Aesheicological ruh bringshe ligh o beauy ino heundus animaeby working a beaui-ul orm ou o he chaoic woods.27In his conribuion o our

25 See Peres, Cogniio sensiiva, 36.26

Baumgaren pus i hus in heMeaphysia: There are dark percepions inhe soul. Their oaliy is called GROUND OF THE SOUL [FUNDUS ANIMAE].Alexander Gotlieb Baumgaren,Meaphysia, 7h, rp. ed. (Hildesheim: GeorgOlms Verlag, 1963), 511, 176, our ranslaion. For good discussions o heundus animaeand is relaion o Leibnizspeies peepions, see Hans Adler,Fundus AnimaeDer Grund der Seele: Zur Gnoseologie des Dunklen in derAulrung,Deushe Vieeljahsshif Lieauwissenshaf und Geisesge-shihe(1988), 62:2, 197-220; Peres, Cogniio sensiiva, 39-40; TanehisaOabe, Der Begriff der peies percepions von Leibniz als Grundlage rdie Ensehung der sheik,JLA(2010), 35, 46-49; and Simon, Die Ideede Posa, 26-46. Noe also ha hile heundus anmaeseems akin o ha

Freud ould laer call he unconscious, Simon righly insiss ha he oare caegorically disinc (27-28).27Ral Simon, De Idee de Posa, 50, our ranslaion. Noe ha he resulingarwork is no jus orm; i is beauiulorm because i manages o reainsomehing o he pleniude o hings insead o reducing hem o he ser-ile ormulae o scholasicism (hich Baumgaren disparages in 53 o he

Aesheia).See Baumgaren,Aesheia, 557-58, I:534-36; 562-65, I:540-44.In Wolgang Welschs ords in sheische Grundzge im gegenrigenDenken in Genzgnge de sheik(Sutgar: Reclam, 1996), 81: Aeshe-icswhich Baumgaren inroduced as a Trojan horse ino he orress o he


16/475

Introduction

15

volume, Sjoerd van Tuinen aps ino his raionalis radiiono argue ha arworks hemselves can be speculaive. Ye noeven he aesheicological ruh o ar can capure he ruh ohe world in is oaliy; Baumgaren liberaes himsel romhe idea o oal access, rom he ideal o complee cogniionand hus also rom he radiional obsession wih absolueassurance and cerainy.28In his model, only God is able ocognise hings simulaneously in heir ormal and maerialperecion; only he possesses meaphysical ruh. Ulimaely,hen, Baumgaren urns ou o be a raionalis quie differenrom Meillassoux: Baumgaren, oo, aims a he real, bu hedoes no presume ha he absolue can be recuperaed. In-

sead, he sresses human finiude, i.e., our ulimae inabiliyo access he real. For ha reason, even hough Baumgarenis clearly no empiricis in is eigheenh-cenury sense, hishinking has he closes affiniies no wih Meillassouxs work

bu wih hose speculaive realiss we describe asraherunusualempiriciss in he hird secion o his inroduc-ion (Harman, Shaviro, Iain Hamilon Gran, Tim Moron).Baumgarens raming o aesheics as a heory o experience,sensaion, and sensuous cogniion lays he ground or heir

expansion o aesheic hinking ino he non-human orld.No unlike Kanian disineresed pleasure, sensuous cogni-ion allows us o experience he real in is conused beauyraher han subjecing i o concepual hough. Perhaps, iis in sensuous cogniion and aesheic experience ha in-uiions ihou conceps are noblind afer all.29I, romhe perspecive o wha N. Kaherine Hayles in his issuecalls he argumenaive, philosophical variey o speculaiveaesheics (an aesheic heory born ou o he spiri o specu-laive realism), one o he hornies quesions concerning

sciencesbrings abou a change in he conceps o science and cogniion:henceorh, genuine cogniion is aesheicological cogniion, and genuinescience canno ignore is aesheic deerminans (our ranslaion).28 Seffen W. Gross, Felix Aesheicus und Animal Symbolicum: Alexander G.Baumgarendie viere Quelle der Philosophie Erns Cassirers? DeusheZesh Phlosophe(2001), 49:2, 285, our ranslaion.29 Kan, Cque o Pue Reason, 193-94.


17/475

Speculations V

16

aesheics is ha o human access o he real, hen boh Kansand Baumgarens inquiries ino orms o access ha are noprimarily concepual in naure a he very leas allow us oimagine non-correlaionis ays o relaing o he universeo hings. For a speculaive realism ha does no ollow Meil-lassoux in rying o reclaim he absolue on purely raionalgrounds his is a crucial, hough underexplored legacy.

Bu le us no jump oo quickly rom eigheenh-cenuryaesheics o he new meaphysicians. As he ollowing sec-ion shows, he speculaive realiss are no alone amongconemporary hinkers in reurning o he original meaningo aesheics as a heory o modaliies o percepion.30

Conemporary French and German Aeshecs

Aesheic maters have generally winessed a srong reurnin philosophy and oher disciplines o he humaniies in helas fifeen years.31In his secion, e briefly survey some ohe influenial posiions in conemporary aesheics in ordero esablish wha i means o pursue aesheics in he weny-firs cenury and how hese conemporary discourses in urn

conribue o undersanding he conen, aims, and possiblelimis o speculaive aesheics.Le us begin wih wo hinkers whose work has been grealy

responsible or he presen resurgence o aesheics in phi-losophy, ar hisory and criicism, media and lierary sudies:Alain Badiou and Jacques Rancire.

In he Handbook o Inaesheis, Alain Badiou claims hawha we lack oday is a proper undersanding o he relaionbeween ar, philosophy, and ruh. In his view, hree schemaahave so ar deermined our undersanding o his relaion.

30 For a similar assessmen, see Erns von Glaserseld, Farewell o Objeciv-iy, Sysems Reseah(1996), 13:3, 279-86.31 See John J. Joughin and Simon Malpas, eds., Te New Aesheiism(Man-cheser: Mancheser Universiy Press, 1996); Isobel Armsrong, Te Radal

Aeshei(Oxord: Blackwell, 2000); Jonahan Loesberg,A Reun o Aeshe-s(Sanord: Sanord Universiy Press, 2005); Thomas Dochery,AesheDemoac(Sanord: Sanord Universiy Press, 2006).


18/475

Introduction

17

He erms hese schemaa he didacic, he classical, andhe romanic. The didacic and he classical schemaa haveheir origin in Greek philosophy, in Plao and Arisole, whilehe hird schema, as is name implies, as esablished in heRomanic age.32According o he didacic schema, ar producesa semblance o ruh hile ruh is in ac exernal o arand only conceivable in philosophy. In he romanic schema,

ar aloneis capable o ruh, a ruh ha philosophy can onlyapproximae. And in he classical schema, here is no ruho ar a allar is only caharic, and no a all cogniive orrevelaory.33

Badiou holds ha he major schools o hough o he

wenieh cenury were bu coninuaions o hese schemaa:Marxism was a coninuaion o he didacic schemawe seehis in he ork o Brech, or hom ar makes manies anexernal, philosophical ruh, ha o dialecical maerialism;German hermeneuics was a coninuaion o he romanicschemawe see his in he work o Heidegger, where onlyhe poe ruly mainains he effaced guarding o he Open,meaning only ar discloses he ruh ha philosophy can abes proclaim or regiser; and psychoanalysis was a coninua-

ion o he classical schemawe see his in he work o Freudand Lacan, or whom ar is mainly herapeuic and has noclaim o ruh ouside o he imaginary.34

Crucially, Badiou holds ha he wenieh-cenury coninu-aions o he inheried schemaa led o a sauaono hesedocrines. The major schools o hough in he weniehcenury, hile unable o esablish a ne schema or he rela-ionship beween ar, philosophy, and ruh, have all reachedcerainpoliical, quasi-heological, insiuionaldead ends,ulimaely relinquishing any claim o ruh on he par o ar.Badiou suggess ha his is due o he ac ha none o heseschools o hough esablished a noion o arisic ruh ha

32Alain Badiou, Handbook o Inaeshes, rans. Albero Toscano (Sanord:Sanord Universiy Press, 2005), 1-5.33 Badiou, Handbook o Inaeshes, 2-4, original emphasis.34 Ibid., 5-7.


19/475

Speculations V

18

ispopeo ar isel. In his ords, hey missed ou on aricu-laing a noion o arisic ruh ha is boh immanen and

singulara ruh ha is manies inar and, in he paricularorm in hich i is manies, onlyin ar.35

In he didacic schema, he ruh o ar is singular ye noimmanen: singular because ar is a semblance and becausesemblance is unique o ar; ye no immanen because ruhulimaely belongs o philosophy. In he romanic schema,he ruh o ar is immanen ye no singular: immanen be-cause ar (and only ar) makes ruh manies; ye no singular

because his is a ruh ha philosophy also aspires o. In heclassical schema, he ruh o ar is neiher singular nor im-

manen: ar is merely herapeuic, wihou any claims o ruhwhasoever. Ye only hrough a singular and immanen noiono arisic ruh can e find a ay ou o he dead ends o hepredominan aesheic discourses o he wenieh cenury.36

Badiou holds ha we can only arrive a such a noion i wegive up he idea ha hewok o ais he perinen uniy owha is called ar.37Any noion o arisic ruh ha proceedsrom he work o ar as he bearer o ha ruh mus neces-sarily all back ino he aporiae o he esablished schemaa.

Raher, Badiou suggess, we have o comprehend he perinenuniy o ar as an

Arisic configuraion iniiaed by an evenal rupure This configura-ion, which is a generic muliple, possesses neiher a proper name nora proper conour, no even a possible oalizaion in erms o a single

predicae. I canno be exhaused, only imperecly described. I is an

arisic ruh, and everybody knos ha here is no ruh o ruh.38

Badious evenal noion o arisic ruh canno be exhaus-ively discussed here.39Ye wha we can grasp rom his brie

35 Badiou, Handbook o Inaeshes, 7-9, original emphases.36 See Ibid., 9.37 Ibid., 10.38 Ibid., 12.39 For a more exensive discussion o Badious inaesheics and his evenal


20/475

Introduction

19

accoun is ha Badiou perceives he major aesheic discourseso he wenieh cenury o have reached cerain hisoricallimis, which in his view is based on heir ailure o properlycomprehend he ruh o ar, ha is, o esablish a noion oarisic ruh ha is boh singular and immanen, accordingo which ar is irreducible o philosophy,40and in whichphilosophical aesheics becomes an inaesheics, a hink-ing abou ar ha makes no claim o urn ar ino an objecor philosophy.41And in order o achieve such a noion oarisic ruh, we mus firs consider wha we alk abou whenwe alk abou ar: he auhor, he work, he recipien, or, asBadiou suggess, an even?

In he Handbook o Inaeshes, Badiou reurns o an issueha cenrally concerned Baumgaren a he inauguraiono aesheics as a disciplinehe relaion beeen ar, ruh,and philosophy. How does Baumgarens noion o his re-laion are in he schemaa o Badiou? Baumgaren seemso firmly remain ihin heir limis, ye a clear assignmeno his noion o arisic ruh o one o he schemaa seemsquie difficul. As saed earlier, aesheicological ruh hashe advanage over he ruh procedures o reason ha i

provides us wih a maerial, concree kind o ruh ha reasonalonebecause o is necessary absracioncanno deliver.This migh sugges ha we are dealing wih an immanenye no singular kind o ruh here, i.e., wih he romanicschema: ar (he aesheicological ruh procedure) aspires ohe same kind o ruh ha philosophy (he ruh procedureo reason) does, bu hereas philosophys ruhs are purelyormal, ar reains somehing o he pleniude o he universein giving orm o mater and hereby presening a perhaps

even more comprehensive orm o ruh. Ye one could alsoargue ha his more maerial orm o ruh is in ac merelycomplemenary: hile ar does bring orh a special kind o

noion o arisic ruh, see Peer Hallard, Badou: A Subje o uh(Min-neapolis: Universiy o Minnesoa Press, 2003), 193-208.40 Badiou, Handbook o Inaeshes, 9.41Ibid., epigraph.


21/475

Speculations V

20

ruh, his kind o ruh, because i is no sricly based in heprocedures o reason, remains subordinaed o philosophi-cal ruhBaumgaren is a raionalis afer all. This wouldhen sugges he didacic schema: ar is singular in ha iproduces a concree, maerial kind o ruh, ye ruh in ishighes orm is no immanen o ar, bu only o philosophy.

The exac posiion o Baumgaren in he schemaa o Ba-diou appears ulimaely undecidablei oscillaes beeenhe romanic and he didacicbu wha is clear is ha hecerainly does no presen a noion o arisic ruh hich isboh singular and immanen, i.e., a kind o ruh which inBadious vie ould do jusice o a conemporary aesheics

ha manages o overcome he dead ends o he major schoolso hough o he enieh cenury.Since Badious schemaa shed ligh on boh he hisorical

and he conemporary landscapes o aesheics, relaingspeculaive realism o hem should prove illuminaing ihrespec o is posiion vis--vis oher conemporary currens.Given ha speculaive realism does no denoe a unifieddocrine, such juxaposiion should also shed some ligh oninernal differences wihin he movemen. This is a hread

we will ake up again in he hird and las secion o our essay.For no, le us coninue ih our brie and selecive surveyo conemporary posiions by urning o anoher prominenFrench hinker: Jacques Rancire.

Whereas Badious work invies us o hink abou he rela-ion beween ar, philosophy, and ruh, wih Jacques Rancirewe are given he opporuniy o address maters o poliicsand aesheics. Arguably, he relaion beween poliics andaesheics is one o he cenral issues o Rancires oeuvre.For he purpose o our brie survey, we will ocus on Ran-cires Te Poliis o Aesheisa book ha nicely sums uphis aesheico-poliical projec.

One obvious way o hink abou he relaion beween aeshe-ics and poliics ould be o hink abou he avan-garde, yeRancire holds ha avan-garde hinking has oday urnedino a orm o nosalgiaa orm o hough ha only sill


22/475

Introduction

21

claims he uopian in is absence.42This is bes perceived inhe work o Jean-Franois Lyoard, in which ar becomes wi-ness o an encouner ih he unrepresenable ha cripplesall hough as a means o accuse or preven he arroganceo he grand aesheic-poliical endeavour o have hough

become worldan endeavour ha has become ideologi-cally dubious, and mus hence be rejeced, hich means orar o rejec hough, or raher, o presen ha hich canno

be atained by hough.43This however renders such an avan-garde hinking poliically poerless.

Rancires aim is no o proclaim, once more, he avan-garde vocaion o ar or he vialiy o moderniy ha

links he conquess o arisic innovaion o he vicories oemancipaion.44Raher, he wans o develop a basic erminologyby which we can properly undersand he paricular relaiono aesheics and poliics. In order o achieve his, Rancireholds ha e mus firs acquire a clearer concepion o heerm aesheics.45Crucially, Rancire suggess ha aesheicsmus no be undersood in is more narrow definiion, as hephilosophy o ar, bu more broadly and undamenally, in aKanian sense as he sysem o a pioiorms deermining

wha presens isel o experience.46Aesheics in his senseis concerned wih wha Rancire amously calls he disri-buion o he sensible: he sysem o sel-eviden acs osense percepion ha simulaneously discloses he exisenceo somehing in common and he delimiaions ha definehe respecive pars and posiions ihin i.47

Rancire reurns here o he very origins o aesheicsand no only Kans noion o aesheics, bu also o ha o

42 Jacques Rancire, Te Poliis o Aesheis, rans. Gabriel Rockhill (London:Coninuum 2004), 9.43 Ibid., 10.44 Ibid.45 Ibid.46 Ibid., 13.47 Ibid., 12.


23/475

Speculations V

22

Baumgaren as he science o percepion. Ye Rancire giveshis noion an emphaic poliical wis ha boh Kan andBaumgaren lack. Wih Rancire, a pleasurable experiencecan never be disineresed, bu is always already ineresed,shaped by and in urn shaping he disribuion o he sensiblein pre-discursivebecause i perains o he very basic acso percepionways; likewise, whaever is ormed ou o hepleniude o he universe srives no afer an absolue ruh,bu an ideological one: he aesheic is no meaphysical, bupoliical.

Rancires Te Pols o Aeshespresens a undamenalrehinking o he relaion beween poliics and aesheics,

which is, crucially, based on a general redeerminaion owha aesheics is concerned wih: no jus wih ar pracices,bu more undamenally wih modes o sense percepion.Only hrough such a reurn o he origins o aesheics canwe finally undersand he poliical impor o arisic prac-ices. Rancires poin is ha a is very core, he aesheicac is poliical: sense percepion is alays an ac ha is iselsrucured and srucures ha which is perceived, graninghe visibiliy o some objecs and rendering ohers invisible

(which affirms he power o some social groups a he coso ohers), promoing some genres o ar and disqualiyingohers. Aesheics meanshe disribuion o he sensible.

This very claimha aesheics canno be separaed rompoliics, bu is, a is core, enined ih iis a paricularlyineresing one o consider wih regard o speculaive real-is hough. Like Rancire, some o he represenaives ospeculaive realism also reurn o he origins o aesheics ashe science o percepion and sensuous cogniion in ordero newly deermine is basic characer and hereby generalimpor or philosophy and adjacen disciplines. Ye whereashis redeerminaion in Rancire suggess ha he aesheicis essenially poliical, in speculaive realism i leads o amarginalisaion, i no erasure, o he poliical. O course,he basic non-humanapproach o speculaive aesheicsmigh necessiae his: in is esablishmen o an aesheics


24/475

Introduction

23

ha goes beyond he human scope o hings and addressesrelaions o objecs regardless o our invesmen in hem,he poliicalarguably an essenially human realmgesdropped rom is lis o concerns.

Such an assessmen o aesheics afer he speculaive urnmigh make one assume ha i is an apolalprojec ha a-emps o re-esablish a newly purified aesheics, which roma parisan posiion ould render i poenially problemaicon ideological erms. Ye such an assumpion would be quieshor-sighed. For even hough he non-human aims o specu-laive aesheics disengage i a is core rom any poliicalrelaions, his mus no mean ha poliical issues migh no

re-ener he discussion. I migh even be ha precisely sucha program migh help us gain a ne undersanding o hopoliical acion akes place, which is wha one o our conribu-ors, Thomas Gokey, suggess. Gokeys essay is ineresingor a urher reason, because he conceives he speculaivepossibiliies o poliical acion in erms o an avan-gardepraciceprecisely he pracice ha is declared obsolee byboh Rancire and Badiou.48Furhermore, he ac ha Har-man in his essay engages ih he quesion o ha he nex

avan-garde migh look like solidifies our assumpion haa speculaive aesheics migh pose no jus one bu severalchallenges o oher popular aesheic discourses o our ime.

We will now move rom France o Germany or our lasdiscussion o a conemporary posiion, and consider herecen developmens in aesheics here. Very helpul in hisrespec is he collecion o essays iled Falshe Gegensze:Zeigenssishe Posiionen zu philosophishen sheik. Thisbook brings ogeher essays by some o he major figures inconemporary German aesheicsAndrea Kern, Jens Kulen-kampff, Chrisoph Menke, Marin Seel, Ruh Sonderegger, and

48 See Rancire, Te Poliis o Aesheis, 9-10. Badiou holds ha he avan-garde, despie is atemp o being a proper wenieh-cenury aesheic, didno manage o overcome he obsolee schemaa, bu raher ormed a com-binaion o o o hem: he avan-garde as didacico-romanic. Badiou,Handbook o Inaeshes, 8.


25/475

Speculations V

24

Albrech Wellmerand in he ediors inroducion conainsa concise saemen o heir common pursui.

The basic gesure o recen German aesheics is similar oha o Badiou and Rancire: i presens a undamenal chal-lenge o some o he persisen premises o modern aesheicheory. In his, i is specifically concerned ih he relaiono aesheics o heoreical and pracical philosophy (accord-ing o he modern division o philosophy). As Andrea Kernand Ruh Sonderegger claim in heir inroducion o FalsheGegensze, we are conroned oday wih wo problemaicundersandings o his relaion.

The firs undersanding claims ha aesheics assesses a

kind o experience which is auonomous and hereore sandsin no relaion whasoever o a heoreical and pracicalexperience o he orld, because o argue ha here is sucha relaion ould undermine he disinciveness o aesheicexperience and hereby also o he discipline o aesheics.The auhors hold ha such a view implies a marginalisaiono aesheic experience or our everyday lie, and o aeshe-ics or philosophy. Aesheic experience hus a bes ends upbeing jus a orm o relie rom he ordinary, a diversion, a

disracion.49The second undersanding assesses he relaion beween

aesheic, heoreical, and pracical experience in a diameri-cally opposed way. Here, aesheic experience is no longerconceived as auonomous, irreducible o he ordinary expe-rience o he orld, bu conversely represens he highesorm o precisely hose experiences ha heoreical and prac-ical philosophy also an o comprehend. For in aesheicexperience, he world appears o us in he whole ullness

and variey o possible ineress and purposes, raher hanbeing approached under paricular aspecs, as in pracicalor heoreical philosophy. Such an undersanding howeverimplies ha aesheics, hich assesses his experience, is no

49 Andrea Kern and Ruh Sonderegger, Einleiung in Falshe Gegensze:Zeigenssishe Posiionen zu philosophishen sheik, ed. Andrea Kern andRuh Sonderegger (Frankur a. M.: Suhrkamp 2002), 7-8; his and all sub-sequen ranslaions are ours.


26/475

Introduction

25

longer jus one o he major disciplines o philosophy, buraher atains he saus o he only uephilosophy.50

The main problem ha Kern and Sonderegger perceive hereis ha hese posiions are ofen assumed o be muually ex-clusiveha i seems impossible o conceive o an aesheicexperience which is boh auonomous andinormaive orour everyday lives and he oher domains o philosophy. Yehis is he view ha he conribuors o Falshe Gegenszewan o esablish. Even more emphaically, hey argue ha

precisely hrough he paricular way by which i is relaed oordinary, everyday experience, aesheic experience urnsino an auonomous one.51

Kern and Sonderegger sugges hree cenral conceps ordeermining his paricular relaion o aesheic experienceo oher experiences: reflecion, aporiae, and play. The ermshemselves already sugges why aesheic experience is nocongruen wih ordinary experienceno because i hasno relaion o i a all, bu because i elaes isel o i in aspecial ayreflecively, aporeically, playully. The auhorshold ha his is a crucial poin, or i implies ha here is aclose link beween aesheic experience and he basic gesure

o philosophy isel: in philosophy, as in aesheic experience,e relae ourselves o our elaon o he orld.52

Such a reconcepion o aesheic experience leads o aundamenal redefiniion o he posiion aesheics akesamong he oher domains o philosophy: aesheics is nolonger eiher marginal nor o he highes significance opracical and heoreical philosophy, bu now insead sandsin a reciprocal relaion o hem. Ye he saus o aesheicsdoes remain special. Because o he philosophical characer oaesheic experience, aesheics ranscends he saus o beingmerely one o he major disciplines in philosophy, bu raherbecomes he discipline or he conemplaion ophilosophy:in is reflecion o aesheic experience, aesheics canno

50 Kern and Sonderegger, Einleiung, 8-9, original emphasis.51 Ibid., 9-10.52 Ibid., 10, our emphasis in second quoe, original emphasis in hird quoe.


27/475

Speculations V

26

orbear o reflec he relaion o is subjec o philosophy andih ha o reflec philosophy isel.53

We regiser here a urher atemp o undamenally rene-goiae some o he cenral erms o radiional aesheics, inhis case he relaion o aesheics o pracical and heoreicalphilosophy. Imporanly, he conribuors o Falshe Gegenszepu orward no only ha we need a new undersanding ohis relaion, bu also ha such a ne undersanding mighimply ha he discipline o aesheics claims a special sausinside philosophy. Such a diagnosis is reminiscen o Har-mans already quoed asserion ha aesheics become firsphilosophy. Ye Kern and Sondereggers assessmen is o a

markedly differen characer: whereas in Harmans program,aesheics becomes meaphyss, in Kern and Sonderegger iatains a meaphlosophalsaus.

Summing up our survey o recen French and Germanconribuions o aesheics and heir relaion o speculaiverealis concerns, we can say ha one o he undamenalgesures o conemporary aesheics, by hich i atemps oreinvigorae debaes abou ar, is o reconnec such debaeso he original concerns o he disciplineo he quesions

o sensaion, sense percepion, and sensuous cogniion haalready occupied Baumgaren and, subsequenly, Kan. Con-necing again hese wo divisions o aesheicshe philoso-phy o ar and he science o sensuous cogniionseems obe one disincive characerisic o he curren wriings onaesheics ha creaes ne valences and yields prolific neays by hich o renegoiae boh he relaion o aesheicso he oher domains o philosophy and he more specificmaters o aesheics isel. I comes as no surprise, hen, haseveral o he conribuions o his issue sraddle his divi-sion as hey ask some o he mos undamenal quesionsabou aesheics and sensuous cogniion even as hey engagewih specific works o ar: Robero Simanowski on digialar, Magdalena Wisniowska on Samuel Beckets elevision

53 Kern and Sonderegger, Einleiung, 10-11, original emphasis.


28/475

Introduction

27

plays, van Tuinen on manneris paining, Rober Jackson onhe modernis legacy in conemporary video and sculpurework, Harman, Betina Funcke, and Gokey on avan-garde ar.Togeher wih Halsalls reflecions on Kans hird criique,hese essays make up he second par o our volume, TheTheory o Ar, where we bring ogeher hose exs ha en-gage mos direcly ih arisic concerns.

Where precisely conemporary reormulaions o aeshe-ics should lead us is a mater o dispue, and he various ap-proaches apparen in aesheics oday vary grealy in ermso heir specific aims. Ye hey all seem o share somehingin heir pursuis, namely ha hey all atemp o re-esablish

he aesheic in is disiniveness. This means o esablish heaesheic as somehing speifi, as in Badious claim ha arhas is own proper ruh ha is irreducible o oher discoursesand can never be appropriaed by hem (which consequenlyurns any ruhul philosophy o ar ino an inaesheics);and also as somehing o speal mpoane, as in Ranciressuggesion ha poliics is always (also) grounded in aesheics,and in Kern and Sondereggers claim ha aesheics is heexcepional discipline o philosophy in which philosophy

and is oher disciplines can be refleced.Like he oher conemporary aesheic discourses, speculaiveaesheics also lays claim o he disinciveness o he aesheic,puting orward equally programmaic saemens abou hepariculariy o is saus precisely by bringing ogeher materso sensaion wih maters o ar, which consequenly enablesan exensive re-evaluaion o he proper maters o aesheics,hich, as in Claire Colebrooks conribuion o our volume,migh very well urn ou o be he inheren aesheicism o

mater isel. The firs par o our issue, eniled The Ar oTheory, assembles hese more programmaic inervenionseauring, besides Colebrooks essay, he conribuions oShaviro, Leiber and Voig, Maija Jelaa, Hayles, Jon Cogburnand Mark Allan Ohm, and Miguel Penas Lpez.


29/475

Speculations V

28

Aeshecs and Speculave Realsm

Having raced he hisorical origins and, by means o paradig-maic examples, he conemporary landscape o he disciplineo aesheics and he atendan problems and quesions igrapples ih, e ill no ry o deermine he place o herecen speculaive urn in coninenal philosophy wihin hisfield.54In order o do so, boh hisorically and sysemaically,le us firs reurn o he beginnings o aesheics and is earlyeigheenh-cenury prehisory in he discourse on ase.

In his enry in he Sanod Enclopedia o Philosophy, James

54 O he original our speculaive realiss, Graham Harman has undoubedlybeen he mos explici advocae o aesheics. His claim ha aesheics haso be vieed as firs philosophy and his heory o allure are ell knon bynow. In addiion o he already menioned Vicarious Causaion see alsohis Aesheics as Firs Philosophy: Levinas and he Non-Human, NakedPunh(2007), 9, 21-30 and paricularly his Gueilla Meaphysis: Phenomenol-ogy and he Capenr o Tings(Chicago: Open Cour, 2005), 101-44. QueninMeillassoux in urn has recenly given us his reading o Mallarms Coupde dsin Quenin Meillassoux, Te Numbe and he Sen: A Dephemen o

Mallams Coup de Ds, rans. Robin Mackay (Falmouh: Urbanomic, 2012).And while Iain Hamilon Gran has no explicily writen on aesheics per seye, given his Deleuzo-Schellingian dynamic process philosophy, i is sae osay ha aesheics plays a crucial role in his meaphysical projec. One needonly remember ha Schelling pronounced aesheic inuiion as merelyranscendenal inuiion become objecive and ar hus consequenly aonce he only rue and eernal organ and documen o philosophy (F. W. J.Schelling, Sysem o ansendenal Idealism, rans. Peer Heah (Charlotesville:The Universiy Press o Virginia, 1978), 231), and ha or Deleuze aesheicsis he apodicic discipline (Gilles Deleuze, Dffeene and Repeon, rans.Paul Paton (London: Coninuum, 2004), 68). From he original our, onlyRay Brassier has voiced his disdain or aesheics (Agains an Aesheics oNoise, ansizone, nY, htp://ny-web.be/ransizone/agains-aesheics-noise.hml (accessed Sepember 18, 2013)). To hese our hinkers, one should addSeven Shaviro and Reza Negaresani, he later engaging aesheic ormdirecly by means o heory ficion. See Seven Shaviro, Wihou Cieiaand Reza Negaresani, Cylonopedia: Complii wih Anonymous Maeials(Melbourne: Re.press, 2008). In addiion, Timohy Moron jus published hisRealis Magi: Objes, Onology, Causali(Ann Arbor: Open Humaniies Press,2013) ha akes up Harmans philosophy in order o develop an aesheicaccoun o causaliy. Finally, one should menion Armen Avanessians projeco a speculaive poeics and he book series relaed o his projec: Spekula-ive Poeik, htp://www.spekulaive-poeik.de/ (accessed Sepember 18, 2013).


30/475

Introduction

29

Shelley emphasises he anagonisic sance heories o aseadop vis--vis raionalis heories o beauy. He describeshe siuaion hus:

Raionalism abou beauy is he view ha judgmens o beauy are

judgmens o reason, i.e., ha we judge hings o be beauiul by rea-

soning i ou, where reasoning i ou ypically involves inerring romprinciples or applying conceps I was agains his ha mainly

Briish philosophers working mainly wihin an empiricis rameworkbegan o develop heories o ase. The undamenal idea behind any

such heorywhich we may call he immediac hesisis ha judgmens

o beauy are no (or a leas no primarily) mediaed by inerences

rom principles or applicaions o conceps, bu raher have all heimmediacy o sraighorwardly sensory judgmens; i is he idea, in

oher words, ha we do no reason o he conclusion ha hings are

beauiul, bu raher ase ha hey are.55

In his vein, i one were o pain a broad-brush picure ospeculaive realism, one could mainain ha wha we are wi-nessing oday, wha is discernible now ha he very firs waveo he speculaive urn has hi he shore and he ripples have

subsided, is a ne sruggle beeen raionalism and empiri-cism wihinconemporary speculaive philosophy in generaland is ake on aesheics in paricular. In ac, aesheics ishe domain ha brings o ligh precisely his divide. Devoinga special issue o speculaive realism and aesheics hus noonly provides an opporuniy o survey wha he speculaiveurn in all is variey migh bring o he discourse on aesheics,

bu comes ih he added value o sharpening he ocus onhis variey isel. In analogy o Shelleys accoun, one couldhus say ha or he conemporary raionaliss, mahemaics(Meillassoux) and science (Brassier) dicae he discourseon and he place o aesheics wihin he larger rameworko episemology ih he concomian inen o hun donany maniesaion o he, in heir vie, illusory immediacy

55 James Shelley, The Concep o he Aesheic, Te Sanod Enclopediao Philosophy(Fall 2013 Ediion), htp://plao.sanord.edu/archives/all2013/enries/aesheic-concep/ (accessed Sepember 23, 2013), original emphasis.


31/475

Speculations V

30

hesis. The empiriciss (Harman and Gran, bu also Shaviroand Moron) in urn insis upon immediacy and a heory oase in disguise holding ha we immediaely ase somehingbeore we concepually know i. Brassier voiced his dividewihin speculaive realism precisely along hese lines in a2009 inervie, here he said ha he is

Very wary o aesheics: he erm is conaminaed by noions o

experience ha I find deeply problemaic. I have no philosophy o

ar worh speaking o. This is no o dismiss ars relevance or philoso-phyar rom ibu merely o express reservaions abou he kind ophilosophical aesheicism hich seems o an o hold up aesheic

experience as a ne sor o cogniive paradigm herein he Modern(pos-Caresian) rif beween knowing and eeling would be overcome

Some recen philosophers have evinced an ineres in subjecless

experiences; I am raher more ineresed in experience-less subjecs.56

This passage indeed seems o sugges ha aesheics is hedomain where he differences among he speculaive realissare mos acuely on display. In addiion, Brassiers juxaposi-ion highlighs he inverse imporance accorded o experience

(empiricism) on he one hand and he subjec (raionalism) onhe oher, hus confirming our labelling o he wo opposingcamps as empiriciss and raionaliss respecively. Resumingour genealogical recovery o he empiricis noion o ase roma conemporary poin o view, le us emphasise ha we spokeo a heory o ase in disguise since his radiional expres-sion is barely ever menioned in he respecive speculaiverealis riings.57Furhermore, hese heories o ase ould

56 Brassier, Agains an Aesheics o Noise, n.pag.57 Moron, while no discussing i in deail, does reer o i in passing severalimes in his laes monograph. Moron, Realis Magi, 77, 89, 131, 168, 201.Shaviro in urn discusses ase more exensively, paricularly hroughouhe firs chaper o his Whou Cea. Shaviro, Whou Cea, 1-16. Bohrea ase in he conex o Kans analyic o he beauiul precisely, as al-ready indicaed in our firs secion, because 1) Kanian judgmens o aseare no regulaed by conceps, and 2) because Kanian judgmens o ase aredisineresed. This momen in he discourse on ase is atracive o hesehinkers because i seems o offer a poenial enryay o hings as hey are,

ha is, realiy isel.


32/475

Introduction

31

have o be de-humanised as hey apply o he abric o realiyas such, no jus he realm o he human aculy o judgmen.I becomes clearer wha we are rying o say i we complemenase ih inuiion, sensaion, and percepion (as i acuallyhappened in he hisory o aesheics isel, as Baumgarensaesheics qua sensuous cogniion ollowed on he heels oearly Briish reflecions on ase).58Thus, in Harmans (andMorons) objec-oriened ramework, aesheics, as maniesedin he heory o allure, reers o one objec asing, inuiing,sensing, perceiving anoher objec; in Grans Schellingianranscendenal nauralism, aesheics concerns he asing,he inuiion o naures orces and poencies; and in Sha-

viros Whieheadian cosmology, which he urher developsin his conribuion o his volume, i adequaely describeshe domain o prehension, ha is, he domain o relaional-iy per se. For all hese hinkers, any encouner whasoeveris alays he sie o aesheic experience (and he emphasisress on boh o hese erms equally). In hese philosophies,aesheics is oher o concepual knoledge, and prior o i.Given he expansion o aesheics ino he non-human realm,his is also he momen hen aesheics is pushed rom he

domain o human episemology ino ha o general onol-ogy. Ceasing o be a paricular kind o human relaion o heworld, i becomes a general descripor o relaionaliy o/in59he world. As Lpez argues in his conribuion o his volume,Gilber Simondons relaional onology has venured inohis errain hal a cenury beore he speculaive realiss. Iis in exploring ha same space, albei under he banner o asubsance onology, ha Harman has venured o call aeshe-

58 One would have o menion Joseph Addison and Richard Seele, Te Speao,wh Noes, and a Geneal Index, 2 vols. (Ne York: Prined by Samuel Marks,1826), Anhony Ashley Cooper (Third Earl o Shafesbury), Chaaeisis oMen, Mannes, Opinions, imes, ed. Lawrence E. Klein (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversiy Press, 1999), and Francis Hucheson,An Inqur no he Ogn oOu Ideas o Beau and Vue, ed. Wolgang Leidhold (Indianapolis: LiberyFund, 2004), all o which were published beween 1711 and 1725 and husell beore Baumgaren coined he erm aesheics in 1735.59 The choice o he preposiion depends on wheher one avours a relaionalonology (o) or a subsance onology (in).


33/475

Speculations V

32

ics firs philosophy: in his ramework, human episemologyonly builds on and comes afer he general aesheic srucureo/in being. Indeed, subjecless experience underlies andcomes o deermine cognising subjecs.

I is his cenraliy o aesheic experience ha he raionalissdispue. They view such a hyposaisaion o aesheic experi-ence beyond he human realm as illegiimae and unounded.Why use erms such as percepion or inuiion or describingnon-human relaions? According o he raionaliss, his noonly conuses a very human rai or a rai o realiy in gen-eral; much worse, i acually impedes and hinders he raionalinquiry ino human and non-human relaions, jus as Jelaa

argues in saging a ace-off beween Sellars and Deleuze inhis conribuion. Thus, or he raionaliss, episemology quaraional inquiry governs and deermines aesheics. By heirlighs, any immediae asing o anyhing is bu a humanficion. Consequenly, hey do no have much o say in hisregard, as Brassier himsel makes unmisakably clear in hepassage quoed above. All hey have o offer or his discourseis o call i ou or is irraionalism.

Our nea dichoomy o raionaliss vs. empiriciss is oo nea,

hough, and needs o be complicaed. Afer all, he adven oKans ranscendenal philosophy separaes his older debaerom everyhing ha came aferwards. Nohing remainedhe same afer Kans invenion o he ranscendenal. HisCopernican revoluion marks he decisive urning poin inhe hisory o modern philosophy as i inevenes peiselyn hs debae beween aonalsm and empsm. I is in hisconex ha Meillassouxs diagnosis o correlaionism, a di-agnosis all speculaive realiss agree on, needs o be locaed.As Paul J. Ennis has convincingly shown,60he charge ocorrelaionism is precisely direced agains ranscendenalphilosophy.61Thus, we have o add ranscendenal philosophy

60 Paul J. Ennis, Connenal Realsm(Wincheser: Zero, 2010).61 This is also he reason why Meillassoux has venured o propose he ermsubjecalism as a complemen o he earlier correlaionism in one o hisrecen essays, Quenin Meillassoux, Ieraion, Reieraion, Repeiion: ASpeculaive Analysis o he Meaningless Sign, htp://oursecreblog.com/


34/475

Introduction

33

o he mix. Wha e are inessing in speculaive realism iso a large exen a reorking o he ranscendenal. Wha allo he speculaive realiss reain rom he Kanian inveniono he ranscendenal is is mmanene.62All speculaive real-iss are firmly concerned wih his world and heir respecivephilosophies are hisworldly. Wha hey all rejec is KansCopernican revoluion, hich Meillassoux inAe Fnudedenounced as a Polemaic couner-revoluion.63Wha isrejeced is hus he cenraliy o human expeieneand isondiions o possibili. However, while one par o speculaiverealism paricularly rejecs he humanin human experience,he oher side rejecs precisely he expeiene. On he one side,

ha resuls is an onologalrecasing o he ranscendenalas i applies o realiy per se: a ranscendenal empiricism(Gran, Harman, Moron, Shaviro); on he oher side, we havean epsemologalaccoun o he poers o human hougho pierce his very same realiy: a ranscendenal raional-ism (Brassier, Meillassoux). As such, boh o hese srains ohough are o a cerain exen already presen in Kan. Thisis why Kan, harking back o he very beginning o his aricle,is boh speculaive realisms ors enemy andbes riend.

Wih respec o aesheics, e could also recas his dividein erms o Badious riparie division discussed above. Inhis vein, he ranscendenal empiricis camp o speculaive

x/QMpaperApr12.pd (accessed Ocober 24, 2013). A revised version isorhcoming in Genealoges o Speulaon: Maealsm and Subjev sneSuualism, ed. Armen Avanessian and Suhail Malik (London: Bloomsbury,2015). The neologism serves o recuperae and subsume wihin his sweep-ing criique boh idealis and vialis philosophies whose poin o originMeillassoux ulimaely races o he pre-ranscendenal idealism o Berkeley.

62 Already Gilles Deleuze acknoledged and emphasised his poin in hisown criique o Kan: Kan is he one who discovers he prodigious domaino he ranscendenal. He is he analogue o a grea explorerno o anoherworld, bu o he upper or lower reaches o his one. Gilles Deleuze, Diffeeneand Repeon, rans. Paul Paton (London: Coninuum, 2004), 171.63 Meillassoux,Ae Fnude, 119. I is perhaps orh noing ha his is noMeillassouxs coinage and has been in use a leas since Berrand Russellsoriginal publicaion o Human Knowledgein 1948. See Berrand Russell, Hu-man Knowledge: Is Sope and Lms(London: Rouledge, 2009), 1. O course,discussions o Kans revoluion dae o even earlier.


35/475

Speculations V

34

realism would be engaged in a radical reworking o he Ba-diouian romanic schema, while he ranscendenal raionaliscamp could be said o eiher propose a renewal o he clas-sical schema or a developmen o Badious on inaesheics.The lack o publicaions ha explicily ake up aesheicsmakes i difficul o assess Brassier and Meillassoux on hispoin. Risking a judgmen, i seems o us ha Brassier couldbe said o endorse he classical schema, while Meillassouxseems o be more in line ih Badiou. Admitedly, e are onvery hin ice here. These diagnoses are based on Brassiersrejecion o he caegory o experience on he one hand, andMeillassouxs ollowing remarks rom Ieraion, Reieraion,

Repeiion on he oher:My maerialism is so ar rom being hosile o empiricism, ha in aci aims o ound he absolue necessiy o he later. My only disagree-

men wih he empiricis is ha I affirm ha he [sic] is absoluelycorrec:I you wan o know or hink wha is, you mus neessaily(rom my

poin o view) do so by way o a cerain regime o experience: scienificexperimenaion (he sciences o naure), hisorical and sociological

experience, bu also lierary and arisic experience, ec. And here, my

role is o preven a cerain philosophical regime rom conesing hesovereigny o hose disciplines o experience I have enumeraed.64

Meillassoux, like Badiou, deends he disciplines auonomyboh rom one anoher and rom philosophy. As a resul, iseems o us ha Meillassoux should be sympaheic o Ba-dious inaesheics projec. Also, noe ha while Meillassouxhus carves ou a space o ruh peraining o ar, his spaceremains purely empiricali is given (ha is) and hus amaniesaion o aciciy. Meillassoux, however, is ineresedin ounding he absolue necessiy o he coningency o suchacshe speculaive essence or acialiy o aciciywhich isel is no a ac.65This is why Meillassoux is noan empiricis. I is also he reason hy he is no ha much

64 Meillassoux,Ieraion, Reieraion, Repeiion, 12, original emphases.65 Meillassoux,Ae Fnude, 79.


36/475

Introduction

35

ineresed in ar.66He is happy o leave discussions abou aro he expers in he respecive disciplines o experience,ha is, aesheics and heory o ar.

This is consisen wih he ac ha Meillassoux jus pub-lished an exensive reading o Mallarms Coup de ds: heruh o he poem is inrinsic o lierary (or arisic) pracice,bu his inrinsic ruh i produces is indicaive o anoher,philosophical, ruhand his is where Meillassouxs inereslies. According o Meillassoux, Badiou reads he uncerainyand hesiaion in Mallarms poem as congruous wih hison noion o he even. In his vein, he ord perhaps asemployed in he poem poins o a uure o come, awaiing a

ruh ha would come o complee i in he same ime as abol-ish i, replacing is hypoheiciy wih an effecive ceriude.67Meillassoux hinks ha his leads o devaluing or relaivizinghe ineres o [Mallarms] poery as i inegraes and cusdown o size he uncion o he perhaps, which, accord-ing o Meillassouxs on reading, lies in is hyposaisaion:he absoluisaion o chance.68Such diagnosis, o course, isno very ar rom Meillassouxs necessiy o coningencyhesishence his ineres in Coup de ds.69In he conex o

66 The same holds rue o Meillassouxs relaion o he scienceshis goesa long way owards explaining he lack o acual scienific discourse in

Afe Finiudedespie is iniial appeal o he sciences in is discussion ohe arche-ossil.67 Quenin Meillassoux, Badiou and Mallarm: The Even and he Perhaps,rans. Alley Edlebi, Pahesa(2013), 16, 38.68 Ibid., 38.69 How he aesheic is o be siuaed in relaion o coningency in Meil-lassouxs overall philosophical sysem is hined a in he excerps romLnexsene dvneincluded in Harmans sudy o Meillassoux. There, Meil-lassoux employs he noion o beauy as heindicaor o he jusness o apossible uure world o jusice and hus, in Kanian ashion, inexricably ieshe aesheic o he moral. Where in Kan he experience o beauy paradeshe orld beore our eyes as i [i] had been creaed in conormance ih

moral ends and hus opens up he possibiliy o God, in Meillassoux, as-suming ha a perec jus world were incarnae a some uure poin in ime,i wouldin accordance wih his principle o unreason and he necessiyo coningencyreveal he emegene wihou eason o an aod beweeneason and he eal. The experience o beauy would hus be an indicaor


37/475

Speculations V

36

our discussion, wha is remarkable in Meillassouxs accounis ha he casigaes Badiou or no being aihul enougho he ruh o he poem, ha is, or ailing o live up o hisown inaesheics. Meillassoux hen proceeds o ou-BadiouBadiou himsel.

A similar picure o ha drawn rom Badious riparieclassificaion o aesheic discourse emerges rom Kern andSondereggers inroducory survey. When Kern and Sondereg-ger cones boh he noion ha aesheics is he only uephilosophy and he idea ha i is bu philosophys servan,70hey rejec he romanic and classical schemaa o ar. In urn,heir recasing o aesheics as meaphilosophical could pos-

sibly even be seen as a reorking o he didacic schema asaesheics hus provides philosophy wih he mirror o observeisel as i is engaged in is episemic projec.71I we ake heserecen rends ino accoun, i seems ha Badious diagnosiso he deah o he hree aesheic schemaa is ill-aed as allhree seem o be well and alive. A Badiouian migh o coursemainain ha hese srands are helplessly los as hey arecaugh in heir dead ends and ha only a proper inaesheicsprovides he royal road o escape. Whaever he repercus-

sions, i seems o be clear ha speculaive realism is dividedbeween a rerieval (in he Harmanian sense elaboraed inhis conribuion o his issue) o romanic aesheics and iscomplee dismissal (Brassier); or, minimally, a prouse lacko ineres oards i (Meillassoux).

o he coningency o jusice incarnae, and only a world ha offers hisexperience would be a jus world. Quenin Meillassoux, Excerps romLinexisene divine, rans. Graham Harman in Quenin Meillassoux: Philosophy

in he Makingby Graham Harman (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Universiy Press,2011), 218-19, original emphasis.70 Kern and Sonderegger, Einleiung, 8-9.71 I is elling ha Kern and Sonderegger do no have a word o say abouonology and only evoke ehics (pracical philosophy as concerned wih hegood) and episemology (heoreical philosophy as concerned wih ruh)as he oher cenral disciplines o philosophy besides aesheics. Equaingheoreical philosophy wih episemology, heir undersanding o philosophyis very much in line wih wenieh cenurys ani-meaphysical oulook.Philosophy is indeed reduced o an episemic projec.


38/475

Introduction

37

The speculaive realis rerieval o romanic aesheics asexpounded by is ranscendenal empiricis wing also goes along way owards explaining he lack o an explici discourseon poliics. A shor juxaposiion wih Rancires posiionshould prove illuminaing in his respec. From he poin ovie o he speculaive realis rerieval o romanicism, Ran-cires soio-poliial noion o he disribuion o he sensiblehas o be recas in meaphysial erms. I is due o speculaiverealisms larger meaphysical oulook ha aesheics becomesdivorced rom he poliical; or, raher, he poliical becomesjus one iny field wihin being where he aesheic plays ouand poliics can hus no assume a cenral role in is deer-

minaion. Agains advocaes o a poliics o being who argueor an inherenly poliical srucure o being and hus mighobjec o such an argumen, we agree wih he speculaiverealiss ha poliics needs some rudimenary orm opoliso ake place, and a mere congeries o hingswha objec-oriened hinkers call Laour Lianiesdoes no make apolis.Thus, disribuion has o be recas as a neualonological, nopaialsocio-poliical aciviy (or occurrence; or processpickyour avourie erm).

Wih his observaion, we have reached he end o our shororay ino he hisorical and sysemaic ramificaions o heconemporary aesheic landscape. As a means o concludehis survey, le us reurn once more o he heyday o aesheicsha sared wih Kan and coninued hrough all o GermanIdealism. We have saed ha speculaive realism in large parsamouns o a rerieval o jus his radiion, an argumen haCogburn and Ohm presen in much more deail in heir Whighisory o speculaive realism, which serves o inroduce heirown concerns wih ruh and ficion in heir conribuion ohis special issue. In his vein, aesheics in he weny-firscenury, a leas in is speculaive guise, amouns o eihearadical reworking o German Idealism (he speculaive realisranscendenal empiriciss) oi amouns o nohing much aall (he speculaive realis ranscendenal raionaliss). Srik-ingly, he later posiion comes close o Jens Kulenkampffsdiagnosis in his conribuion o Falshe Gegensze. Having


39/475

Speculations V

38

dismissed boh Kans and Hegels meaphysical commimensas obsolee, Kulenkampff closes his essay wih he ollowingprovocaive remark:

European aesheics beore Kan is in ruh bu a prehisory o philo-

sophical aesheics, and philosophical aesheics rom Hegel onards

is nohing bu a varian o eiher Kanian or Hegelian aesheics. I,

however, Kan and Hegel are no longer available as reerence figures

or a philosophical aesheics, hen aesheics migh indeed survive as asub-discipline wihin academic philosophy, and he label Philosophi-cal Aesheics coninue o exis, bu a philosophical aesheics worhyo he name is long dead.72

Conra Kulenkampff (and conra he ranscendenal raionalising o speculaive realism), hoever, speculaive realismsranscendenal empiriciss esiy o he ongoing relevanceo he Kanian and pos-Kanian radiion as can be winessedin heir cenral reorking o he ranscendenal and he im-porance o figures such as Schelling and Kan himsel. Leus be clear on his poin, hen, and sae i as succincly aspossible: speculaive aesheics in he eny-firs cenury s

German Idealism redux.

72 Jens Kulenkampff, Meaphysik und sheik: Kan zum Beispiel inFalshe Gegensze, 80, our ranslaion.


40/475

Par 1: Te Ar o Teory


41/475

40

Non-Phenomenologcal TouhSeven Shavo

Wayne Sae Universiy

Q

M, invened he erm oelaionism,

iniially defines i as he ideaaccording o which we only ever have access o he correla-ion beween hinking and being, and never o eiher ermconsidered apar rom he oher.1This would seem a firs o

be an enirely symmerical ormulaion. Subjec and objec,or more generally hough and being, are regarded by hecorrelaionis as muually co-consiuing and co-dependen:

no only does i become necessary o insis ha we nevergrasp an objec in isel, in isolaion rom is relaion o he

subjec, bu i also becomes necessary o mainain ha wecan never grasp a subjec ha would no always-already berelaed o an objec.2Described in his manner, he correla-ion would seem o move indifferenly in eiher direcion,rom hinking o being or rom being o hinking.

However, his urns ou no o be he case. Meillassouxsormulaion is no symmerical or reversible, bu raherunidirecional. When hough and being are correlaed,hough is always he acive and relaional erm, he one haacuallypeomshe correlaion. Being, on he oher hand,

jus s; his makes i he dumb and passive erm, he one hamerely suffers being apprehended by, and hereby correlaedo, some sor o consciousness or subjeciviy ouside o isel.

1 Quenin Meillassoux,Afe Finiude: An Essay on he Neessi o Coningenc,rans. Ray Brassier (Ne York: Coninuum, 2008), 5.2 Meillassoux,Ae Fnude, 5.


42/475

Steven Shaviro Non-Phenomenological Tought

41

In oher words, subjeciviy implies inenionali: which is osay, a primordial orienaion owadsan objec beyond isel.Objeciviy, in conras, is supposed o be able o sand alone.In Meillassouxs accoun, hough always reers o being,hile being in isel remains indifferen o hough. Think-ing per se is correlaional, insoar as i necessarily implies a

relaion-o-he-world. Ani-correlaionism hereore comeso be equaed wih posiing an absolue ha is a once ex-ernal o hough and in isel devoid o all subjeciviy.3Wecan only escape correlaionism by affirming he pure andsimple deah, wih neiher consciousness nor lie, wihouany subjeciviy hasoever, ha is represened by he sae

o inorganic mater.4

In his criique o correlaionism, hereore, Meillassouxseems very nearly obsessed wih purging hough and subjec-iviy alogeher rom he universe o hings. In order o sepouside o he sel-confirming correlaionis circle, Meillas-soux says, e need o sep ouside o hough alogeher.5Wemus reach a posiion hich akes seriously he possibiliyha here is nohing living or willing in he inorganic realm,and or hich absolue realiy is an en whou hough.6

Beyond he correlaion, exisence is oally a-subjecive.7Iancesral realiy does no exiso us, his is because i doesno exis in hougha all: i is anerior o givenness andreuses any sor o maniesaion hasoever.8

For Meillassoux, correlaionism, no less han naive com-mon sense, begins wih a radical decision: he asserion

o he essenial inseparabiliy o he ac o hinking romis conen. Once his decision has been made, i is already

3 Quenin Meillassoux, Ieraion, Reieraion, Repeiion: A SpeculaiveAnalysis o he Meaningless Sign, alk a Freie Universi Berlin, 20 April2012, oursecreblog.com/x/QMpaperApr12.pd (accessed 11 April, 2013), 2.4 Meillassoux, Ieraion, 6, original emphasis.5 Meillassoux,Ae Fnude, 5.6 Ibid., 38, 36.7 Ibid., 38.8 Ibid., 14.


43/475

Speculations V

42

oo lae: all e ever engage ih is ha is given-o-hough,never an eniy subsising by isel.9Meillassoux, as GrahamHarman has noed, akes seriously he sophism accordingo which hinking o somehing means ransorming hasomehing ino an objec o hough. The paradoxical ask ospeculaive philosophy, or Meillassoux, is hereore o hinkagains he very decision ha inauguraes hough. The aimis o atain a hough ha urns back upon and erases isel.Meillassoux seeks o operae he dialecical reversal by meanso which hough has become able o hink a world ha candispense ih hough, a orld ha is essenially unaffeced

by heher or no anyone hinks i.10

Such a posiion can easily be aligned wih scienific reduc-ionism or eliminaivism. Meillassoux argues ha empiricalscience is oday capable o producing saemens abou evensanerior o he adven o lie as well as consciousness.11Thais o say, science lierally and objecively presens us wih arealiy ha canno be in any ay correlaed ih hough: aworld ha is aneio o givenness isel and pio o givennessin is enie.12Empirical science and mahemaics inimaeo us a orld crammed ih hings and evens ha are no

he correlaes o any maniesaion, a world ha is no hecorrelae o a relaion o he orld. The primary qualiiesdisclosed by science are enirely nonrelaional, and noous.13Meillassoux hereore claims ha he mahemaizaiono naure perormed by he physical sciences allows us, asoher modes o undersanding do no, o know wha may bewhile we are no ... Wha is mahemaizable canno be reducedo a correlae o hough.14Indeed, all hose aspecs o heobjec ha can be ormulaed in mahemaical erms can bemeaningully conceived as properies o he objec in isel9 Meillassoux,Ae Fnude, 36.10 Ibid., 116.11 Ibid., 9.12 Ibid., 20-21.13 Ibid., 26, 1.14 Ibid., 115, 117.


44/475


43

raher han being secondary qualiies ha are added o heobjec by our on menal aciviy in perceiving i.15

I would like o compare his, or a momen, wih RayBrassiers posiion. Brassier, much like Meillassoux, rejecshe privilege ha radiional philosophy has accorded osubjeciviy, experience, and hough. And Brassier, againlike Meillassoux, urns o he physical sciences as a way oescape rom correlaionism. Bu where Meillassoux akescorrelaionis logic seriously, and hinks ha he can onlydeea i by empying i ou rom wihin, Brassier is alogeherdismissive o his logic. Brassier scornully denounces hahe describes as he aal non-sequiur a he roo o every

varian o correlaionism: is slippage rom he riviallyrue claim ha my houghs canno exis independenly omy mind o he enirely unsuppored claim ha whamyhoughs are abou canno exis independenly o my mind.16To he conrary, Brassier argues, hough never coincideswih is inenional conen; i never corresponds wih hehing ha i is abou. Correlaionism is hereore ludicrous a

pioi. Indeed, Brassier insiss ha hough is no guaraneedaccess o being; being is no inherenly hinkable; we live

in a orld ha is no designed o be inelligible and is nooriginarily inused ih meaning.17Consequenly, here isalways a gap, or a discrepancy, beween wha our concepo he objec is and ha he objec is in isel.18

This very gap or discrepancy grounds Brassiers robus andhoroughgoing scienism. Neiher science nor meaphysicscan overcome he non-coincidence beween hings hemselves,and he ways ha hese hings are represened in our hough.Bu or Brassier, even philosophies ha affirm his unda-menal non-coincidencelike ha, mos noably, o Gilles

15 Meillassoux,Ae Fnude, 3.16 Ray Brassier, Conceps and Objecs in Te Speulave un: Connenal

Maeialism and Realism, ed. Levi Bryan, Nick Srnicek, and Graham Harman(Melbourne: Re.press, 2010), 63.17 Ibid., 47.18 Ibid., 55.


45/475

Speculations V

44

Deleuzeremain idealis and correlaionis, o he exen hahey posi his originary difference as a differenceo houghisel.19Agains his, Brassiers ranscendenal realism makeshe case ha his ineviable differencehe one beween aconcep and ha o hich i reerscan never be concepu-alised isel, bu isel always remains nonconcepual.20Forscience, Brassier says, he realiy o he objec deermines hemeaning o is concepion; whereas meaphysics argues hereverse.21The difference o realiy rom how i is hough is aonce deermining or hough and irreducible o hinking.22Science, hereoreunlike meaphysicsacually allows hediscrepancy beween ha realiy and he way in which i is

concepually circumscribed o be measured.23

The orld ismeaningless; bu hrough science i is possible o undesandhe meaninglessness o exisence.24Tha is o say, science isable o undersand his meaninglessness wihou urningi ino ye anoher source o meaning. For Brassier, hiscapaciy o undersand meaning as a regional or boundedphenomenon marks a undamenal progress in cogniion.25

Through he progress o scienific knowledge, hereore,hough is increasingly compelled o recognise is own ir-

relevance and impoence. Once i is no longer correlaedo being, hough becomes he locus or he ideniy oabsolue objeciviy and impersonal deah.26This meansha scienific knowledge, achieved hrough hough, leadsulimaely o he exincion o houghor, more precisely,

19 Ray Brassier, Nihil Unbound: Enlighenmen and Exinion(New York:Palgrave Macmillian, 2007), 203.20 Ibid., 118.21 Brassier, Conceps and Objecs, 55.22 Ibid., 203.23 Ibid., 55.24 Ray Brassier, I am a nihilis because I sill believe in ruh, Konos(2011),htp://www.kronos.org.pl/index.php?23151,896 (accessed Sepember 17, 2013),original emphasis.25 Ibid.26 Brassier, Nhl Unbound, 204.


46/475


45

o houghs recogniion o is own exincion. No only ishe philosopher moral; he subjec o philosophy musalso recognize ha he or she is aleadydead.27When heabsence o correlaion isel becomes an objec o hough,i hereby ransorms hough isel ino an objec, so ha

exincion indexes he hough o he absence o hough.28For Brassier, he consequence o rejecing correlaionism iso conron a universe ha is no only irreducible o hough,

bu aally inimical o hough.The conras beween Brassier and Meillassoux is elling.

Brassier sees criical and raional houghembodied inmahemaics and scienceas ineviably precipiaing is own

demise. Meillassoux, in conras, recruis posiivisic scienceand mahemaical ormalisaion in order o urn hem op-porunisically agains hough. Tha is o say, mahemaicalormalisaion is no really he las word or him. Indeed, scienceand mahemaics are arguably no imporan o Meillassouxa all. The physical sciences give Meillassoux he argumenha ancesral objecs exis, prior o any sor o maniesaionor a subjec. And Canors heory o ransfinies provides hebasis or his demonsraion (ollowing Badiou) ha he se o

possible uure evens does no consiue a oaliy and here-ore canno be undersood probabilisically. Bu once heseargumens have been esablished, science and mahemaicsno longer play a crucial role. Meillassoux himsel concedes (ormore accuraely, boass) ha his own speculaive maerialism

says nohing as o he acual being o our world.29WhenMeillassoux praises Badiou or us[ing] mahemaics iselo effec a liberaion rom he limis o calculaory reason,he is saying somehing ha applies even more ully o his

on philosophy.30Indeed, Meillassouxs major claimha he laws o na-

ure are enirely coningen, and ha a any ime hey could

27 Brassier, Nhl Unbound, 239, my emphasis.28 Ibid., 229-30.29 Meillassoux, Ieraion, 13.30 Meillassoux,Ae Fnude, 103.


47/475

Speculations V

46

acually change or no reasonould seem o underminescienific raionaliy alogeher.31Science canno work wihouassuming he validiy o relaions o cause and effecwhichis o say, wihou some degree o confidence or aih (howeveratenuaed) in he principle o sufficien reason ha Meil-lassoux rejecs.32We can hereore conclude ha Meillassouxdoes no embrace mahemaisaion because i helps o give usscienifically valid and objecive (non-correlaional) resuls.Raher, he poin o mahemaisaion or Meillassoux is oge rid o subjecive experience alogeher, by giving us anaccoun o naure sripped o is sensible qualiies.33Thepoin is o absrac he orld aay rom everyhing ha our

minds migh add o i. This is why Meillassoux is so con-cerned ih reinsaing Descares docrine o primary andsecondary qualiies, in order o separae he ormer rom helater. Meillassoux admis hose aspecs o he objec hacan give rise o a mahemaical hough (o a ormula or odigiizaion), while rejecing hose ha give rise, insead, oa percepion or sensaion.34

Today, scienisic eliminaivism no longer uses he erminol-ogy o primary and secondary qualiies. Bu i sill seeks

o dismiss subjecive impressions as illusory, and o explainhem as mere effecs o underlying physical processes. DanielDennet ells us, or insance, ha qualia, or he inrinsicphenomenal characerisics o subjecive experience, dono really exis.35The only real difference beeen Dennetand Brassier is ha Dennet reuses o ollow hrough andacknowledge he radically nihilisic vision o exincion haBrassier righly deduces as he ineviable consequence oscienisic reducionism and he biurcaion o naure.

Bu Meillassouxunlike Brassier, and unlike mos analyic

31 Meillassoux,Ae Fnude, 84.32 Ibid., 60 e passim.33 Ibid., 124.34 Ibid., 3.35 Daniel Dennet, Quining Qualia, htp://ase.ufs.edu/cogsud/dennet/papers/quinqual.hm (accessed Sepember 17, 2013).


48/475


47

philosophers o scienceis no ineresed in demysiying andnauralising our heories o mind, nor in reducing subjeciviyo is osensible microphysical causes. He rejecs wha he calls

nauralism, or he grounding o philosophy upon a saeo science ha has no more reason o be hough definiiveoday han i did yeserday.36Far more radically, Meillassouxseeks o achieve a oal purgaion o hough rom being. Inoher words, Meillassoux does no value he physical sciencesand mahemaics or heir own sakes, bu only becauseando he exen hahey allow us o rejec he caegories osubjeciviy and experience. Science and mahemaics, inoher words, are ools ha Meillassoux uses in order o ge

rid o phenomenology. Where Niezsche ears ha we areno geting rid o God because we sill believe in grammar,Meillassoux ears ha we are no geting rid o correlaionismbecause e sill believe in phenomenal experience.

Bu do we really need o eliminae experience, and senience,in order o ge away rom correlaionism? The problem, I hink,is ih he asymmery ha I have been discussing. Consideranoher one o Meillassouxs ormulaions. The problemih correlaionism, he says, is ha e never, according o

his ype o philosophy, have access o any inended hing(undersood in he mos general sense) ha is no always-already correlaed o an ac o hinking (undersood, again,in he mos general sense).37Wha I would like o do is o rya small experimen. I ill inver Meillassouxs saemen, inorder o creae a complemenary proposiion, as ollows: heproblem wih correlaionism is ha we never, according ohis ype o philosophy, have any ac o hinking (undersoodin he mos general sense) ha is no always-already corre-

laed wih access o an inended hing (undersood, again, inhe mos general sense). Bu we canno imagine Meillassouxsaying any such hing. This is because he has already defined

access and correlaion as operaions o hough, and ohough alone.

36 Meillassoux, Ieraion, 11.37 Ibid., 2.


49/475

Speculations V

48

This is hy he paricular preensions o human houghhave (jusifiably) been he arge o speculaive realis criique.And ye, in he very ac o rejecing one side o he Caresiandualiy, we have ended o reaffirm he oher side. Nobody

believes in es ogiansany longer, bu we largely coninueo accep Descares characerisaion o es exensa. Despiehe admoniions o Henri Bergson, Alred Norh Whiehead,Deleuze, and (oday) Jane Bennet, our deaul onology sillinsiss ha, in he absence o ranscenden mind, he orldis composed o nohing bu passive, iner, and indifferenmater. Whiehead calls his he misconcepion o vacuousacualiy, devoid o subjecive experience.38Such a docrine

o vacuous acualiy lies behind much analyic philosophy,as well as behind Meillassouxs and Brassiers assumpionha he grea oudoors mus be enirely devoid o lie andhough. And, despie Harmans rejecion o underminingreducionism and o smallism, he sill echoes his logicwhen he declares ha objecs only have psyches accidenally,no in heir on righ.39

Meillassouxs purgaion o subjeciviy and experience al-los him o posi an alogeher differen noion o hough.

For Meillassoux, rue philosophical hough has no empiricalbasis whasoever, and no relaion o he body. I has no ies osensibiliy or o affec. Raher, his hough is purely raionaland heoreical; i provides us wih a veriable inelleualinuiiono he absolue.40In order o be exricaed romcorrelaionism, hough mus achieve an enirely excepionalsaus. I mus be absoluely disconneced rom he physicalworld. In accordance wih his, Meillassoux clai

speculations v aesthetics ebook

Documents