• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.117
• /
• pp.85-111
• /
• 2011

Topics with which chis paper deals are as following; (1)Zizek's interpretation of Rothko's painting, (2)Lacan's gaze and picture, (3)the real as object a, (4)primal jouissance and death-drive, (5)a new identity of man-emptiness in Zizek, (6) existential level and existential conflict, (7)a variety of meanings of emptiness, (8)transpecsonal drive and meditation, (9) the different Real-Emptiness, (10)Rochko's painting and transpersonal drive.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.147
• /
• pp.179-214
• /
• 2018

In this paper I understand Zizek's interpretation of Christianity, and examine it critically and suggest its alternative. Zizek argues that Christianity in its core is turned out to be atheist. His atheist Christianity exposes revolutionary potentials with Christianity. His exploration of Christianity is designed to fight against global capitalism. It means an ideological praxis in theory. But he is misleading in interpreting Christianity. It is his fault that while he places much stress on the participatory interpretation of Jesus's death, he belittles the sacrificial interpretation of it. For the subversive power of Christianity springs from the latter. To tell the truth, Christianity is strongly grounded on simultaneous fulfillment of both of them. Zizek. In interpreting Christianity, he delivers us uncorrect understanding of sacrificial interpretation of Jesus's death while he intends to reveal the subversive core of Christianity. In particular, he is lacking in understanding the atonement function and expiation effect immanent in Jesus's death. There is no participatory interpretation without sacrificial interpretation. In this view, Zizek's pagan Christianity has to be revised or rejected. So, I suggest it is possible through orthodox Christianity, not through pagan Christianity to restore and reactivate the subversive core of Christianity in itself and by itself. The burden of proof is up to fighting theist, not fighting atheist like Zizek.

• American Studies
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.181-202
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to examine Paul Auster's Leviathan according to Slavoj Žižek's theory. Analyzing the characters in Leviathan, this paper chiefly discusses the postmodern subject's anxiety and obsessive repetition that the lack of the big Other led to. Section II explains the disintegration of the big Other and the subject's anxiety and obsessive repetition by the interpretation of the characters: Peter Aaron, Maria Turner, and Benjamin Sachs. Aaron wants to write on Sachs's life to overcome his uneasy subject's condition, and to establish the consistent and whole world. But his writing fails to meet his desire, owing to uncertainty of his understanding, and the incompleteness of his writing. In case of Maria, her uneasy subject's condition led to her obsessively repetitive picture-shooting herself and others, which proved to be a meaningless struggle for filling the void of the big Other and herself. Although Sachs already knows the lack and inconsistency of the big Other, he also repetitively tries to establish the consistent and whole Other. In Section III, this paper examines Sachs's terror as he struggles for the preservation of the big Other. His extreme striving also fails to reestablish the big Other as it loses its symbolic effectiveness in the postmodern era because he does not grasp the big Other as an empty Symbolic order, and rejects the premise of the big Other itself.

• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.57 no.5
• /
• pp.787-812
• /
• 2011

This essay aims to explore Herman Melville's recognition and resolution of the vicious link between law and violence in his posthumous Billy Budd, Sailor (1924). In order to investigate the issues, this essay refers to Freud, Benjamin, Derrida, Lacan, and Žižek, all perceptive to the uncanny affinity of law and violence. Especially, Žižek's arguments of "superego" as an embodiment of cruel and destructive violence supplementing the official law and of "love" as an ethical possibility beyond the limit of the problematic law are introduced in this study to make Melville's reflection of the inseparableness between law and violence much clearer. John Claggart and Captain Vere embody the legal (superegoic) violence. Claggart even procurs secret enjoyment, in the name of maintaining positive law. Billy Budd discloses another violence defending his justness according to natural law. However, Melville suggests the possibility of suspending the problematic tie of law/violence through "love," as portrayed at the last part of the story. The two final words from Billy and Vere, as a sort of delayed dialogue between them after the event of their secret interview before Billy's hanging, suggest that they finally distance from the obscene nightly law of superego-respectively from outward punitiveness toward Vere and from inward punishment for Vere's excessive enforcement of Billy's hanging-and identify each other's lack as their own. Their love implicated in the last words is for the real other-in Lacan's sense-who discloses the constitutive lack or incompleteness of beings and aporia of the law. This essay's examination of Melville's representations about the superegoic violence as the (im-)possible condition of law and the possibility of withdrawing from it would help us recognize Billy Budd, Sailor as the author's own last word for the possible vision of love cutting the vicious knot of law/violence.

• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.58 no.4
• /
• pp.565-588
• /
• 2012

This paper aims at reconsidering 'suture,' a key concept in early Lacanian film criticism, with a view to narrowing a supposed gap between early Lacanian and later Lacanian film criticism. Early Lacanian film theorists, among whom Jean-Pierre Oudart, Jean-Louis Baudry, Laura Mulvey and Daniel Dayan, to name a few, are prominent, focus on cinematic signifying system as well as its ideological effects on shaping subjectivity of the audience. Initiated by Jacques-Alain Miller's article on suture as the logic of signifier and grafted into film as the logic of the cinematic by Oudart's writing, the concept of suture was established as a key word in early Lacanian film criticism. In their taxonomy, suture refers to the processes by which the audience are stitched into the story-world of a film. The audience are drawn into the film and take up positions as subjects-within-the-film such that they make sense of and respond to what the film represents as they are encouraged to do so by the film itself. On the other hand, later Lacanian film critics, who are much influenced by Lacan's later emphasis on the Real, focus on concepts such as gaze, petit objet a, fantasy, rather than suture. They are more concerned with the failure of suture and the disruption of the Symbolic than the ideological effects of suture and the consolidation of the Symbolic. They require a break from the previous approach of Lacanian film theory which centers around the Imaginary and the Symbolic. However, early Lacanian and later Lacanian film theory do not manifest as much disparity as they are supposed to do, for both are against the ideological manipulation of suture. Slavoj Žižek, a leading scholar of later Lacanian psychoanalysis, revives the concept of suture as a patch of the Symbolic which covers the gap, if not always successful.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.143
• /
• pp.267-290
• /
• 2017

At the end of the 'observing reason' of the chapter of 'the Reason' in Hegel's PhdG, reads that 'Spirit is a bone' and it is an 'infinite judgement'. We will concentrate on the following problems to clarify the meaning of this infinite judgement. First, this paper introduces the various interpretations on the meaning of the 'Spirit is a bone' and makes a comparative investigation of that problem. If we do not examine the various interpretations, there may be the probability of arbitrary interpretation of this judgement. Second, we will discern the difference between Kant's and Hegel's interpretations with regard to the meaning of the infinite judgement. Hegel obviously understands the content more than the meaning of Kant's forms of infinite judgement (S is not-P). If we do not explicate the reason which Hegel expands beyond the form to the content, it is difficult to understand the meaning which Hegel has said on it. With regard to this, we do not restrict our study to the PhdG. We also refer to the meaning of the infinite judgement on 'the judgement of Dasein' in Hegel's small and large Logics. Third, We are going to explore the various interpretations concerning those problems. Above all, we note ${\check{Z}}i{\check{z}}ek^{\prime}s$ interpretation who relates it to Psychoanalysis. While examining ${\check{Z}}i{\check{z}}ek^{\prime}s$ interpretation, we expecially note how he can interpret it well.