antagonism

Will human sexuality survive the passage to Artificial Intelligence? To answer this question properly, we should first analyze the paradoxical inner structure of sexuality itself, which is never simply binary: it always involves a third element that gives body to the deadlock of sexual difference – this is what Lacan meant by “there is no sexual difference.” This is why sexuality is in itself excessive and perverse. For this reason, all attempts to “normalize” sexuality by way of keeping it within the limits of moderation miserably fail: today, we find on the market products deprived of their dangerous element (coffee without caffeine, chocolate without sugar…), and the moderate sexuality is sexuality without sex. The Buddhist attempts to contain the excess sexuality miss the point of sexuality: intense sexuality is in itself the greatest sacrifice (the sacrifice of peaceful moderate life) – in sexuality, we enjoy the pain, the renunciation itself. However, today, in our world pervaded by commodification and technological inventions, real human partners are more and more replaced by what Lacan called lathouses, artificial objects aimed at satisfying our sexual desire without another human being (plastic phalluses, digitalized pornography). The result is that we are thrown into a space of limitless pleasures where, although “everything is permitted,” our intense sexual desire gets anaestheticized. 

Multiethnic identities in any country can have a dual function; on the one hand, they can strengthen national unity and on the other hand, they can become a trump card in the hands of foreigners to undermine the national security and territorial integrity of that country. In the meantime, the central government plays a decisive role in determining how the ethnic groups living in the country function. In the present study, two completely different approaches to the way of interacting with ethnic identities, namely the Pahlavi government and the Islamic Republic, are examined. Also, a case study will address the way the two aforementioned governments interacted with the Kurdish people, and in this way, the question of what position national identity and ethnic identity had in the two aforementioned periods will be answered. The research data were collected using a library method and analyzed using a comparative method. The research findings indicate that the adoption of an antagonistic approach by the Pahlavi government, which was aimed at achieving Iranian national unity and strengthening their national cohesion, led to the central government's efforts to eliminate ethnic identities, and the cultural policymaking of the Islamic Republic, by adopting an agonistic approach, accepted the concept of ethnic identities as one of the indelible realities of Iranian society.

Robert Pippin was for decades among the most outspoken American Hegelians, defending Hegel’s idealist legacy not only against the post-Hegelian turn towards non-discursive or non-notional reality but also rejecting Heidegger’s treatment of Hegel. So it comes as a shock when,in his new book The Culmination (Pippin, 2024), he endorses Heidegger’s characterization of Hegel’s thought as the culmination of Western metaphysics, as the full deployment of its basic premise that being equals logos, i.e., that the truth of everything that exists (or that can exist) can be articulated in the form of discursive judgments, so that the full system of logic is at the same time a full ontology, the description of conditions that everything that exists should meet. In all probability, Heidegger’s answer would have been that capitalism is just one among ontic organizations of the technological disclosure of Being – as he put it, Soviet Union and the US are “metaphysically the same.” To this we should insist that capitalism is not simply an ontic phenomenon, one of the possible versions of technological attunement: capitalism is not just a social phenomenon, it also has a transcendental-ontological status. It is not modern science and technology as such which push us to continuous domination over and exploitation of nature – they function like this only within the frame of capitalism with its permanent propensity towards expanded self-reproduction. So, Pippin is right here: it is not enough to mention technological disponibility as the source of the disappearance of Meaningfulness – one should add the word “capitalism” never used by Heidegger. Here Marx surprisingly meets radical conservatives: Patrick Buisson, the French ultra-conservative, was right in claiming that “le grand deconstructeur, c’est le capitalisme.”