Anxiety, on this side of knowledge
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.affs.v16n30a07Keywords:
objectivity, objectality, epistemology, Kant, object aAbstract
This paper aims at addressing one aspect barely studied of the Lacanian bibliography, i.e., the reception of the Critique of Pure Reason –especially, the “Transcendental Aesthetic”– in Jacques Lacan’s seminary on Anxiety. Indeed, commentators of Lacan’s work have almost exclusively focused on his reception of Kant’s practical philosophy, putting aside the importance of the Critique of Pure Reason to delimit the object a. In this point, it will be necessary to recall the fundamental difference between objectivity and objectality in order to distinguish the desire on the base of the conditions of possibility from knowledge to desire.
Downloads
References
Badiou, A. (2012). The Subject of Change. New York: Athropos Press
Harari, R. (1993). El seminario “La angustia” de Lacan: una introducción. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.
Kant, I. (1781). Crítica de la razón pura. Buenos Aires: Colihue, 2009.
Koyré, A. (1957). Del mundo cerrado al universo infinito. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, 2002.
Lacan, J. (1958-59). El seminario de Jacques Lacan. Libro 6: El deseo y su interpretación. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Lacan, J. (1962-63). El seminario de Jacques Lacan. Libro 10: La angustia. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Lacan, J. (1963). “Kant con Sade” en Escritos II. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, 2001.
Meillassoux, Q. (2006). Después de la finitud. Ensayos sobre la necesidad de la contingencia. Buenos Aires: Caja Negra, 2016.
Zupančič, A. (2012). Ethics of the Real. New York: Verso.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Affectio Societatis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors authorize the Journal to publish their academic writings in the Journal’s webpage and in any other printed or electronic media propriety of the Journal, as well as in the databases the Journal is registered in. Affectio Societatis acknowledges that moral rights and decision criteria for the material’s subsequent publication in other media falls exclusively within the author’s authority, who for such cases is prompted to give explicit credit to Affectio Societatis..
