Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Pierre Macherey On The Rupture PDF

    Diunggah oleh

    Valentín Huarte
    6 tayangan5 halaman

    Judul Asli

    Pierre_Macherey_On_the_Rupture.pdf

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    PDF atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    6 tayangan5 halaman

    Pierre Macherey On The Rupture PDF

    Diunggah oleh

    Valentín Huarte

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 5
    118 the minnesota review Pierre Macherey On the Rupture jorge Sempruns txt grapples wit almost cry subject tone, al he ‘tice permit s fo define ourselves a "mars," The nation of Haranis, sce come, only plas inthis text the role ofa pretext. Ugenise, whit vending Sempran ne can choose an ete tern point ‘applicant tone inden hs te, Thats why {woud choo werent of departure one ofthe few paragraph in which te probl ‘ot method posed very conception of the progressions of thought (Marx's in nis spoufe eae, but the obeervtion has a general valve) by tnean of "ruptures" or "qualitative leaps,” in spite ofits dake {ical appearance is disputable. The most correct the mostra onal trust (hac by he thought most adequate tothe ral tinerstanding and transformation ofthe wold is never arevsla- tion, But an elaboration, in which praxis plays a more or less Inportant role Mark that role was decisive), Tn cultural and ‘ological analysis, the notion of “rupture” should be handled tvith extreme car, if we truly want to avokdextemisms. Here, Ie touch on the probleme ofthe dscusion about "bourgeois SSeneeand proletarian science," ofthe discussion about Pro- Teal," ete| “The whole interpretation of this paragraph lie in the translation to be aiven (othe words “extreme cate.” Obviously, the concept of rupture, Tike al concepts, must be used, noi with prudence or precaution but with, {ave that sins rue meaning, If hat meaning hasbeen acquired, ap- peal to pradence are superfluous; the rigor that guides a rational wage Benoush, ‘Without prejuding the domain to which this concept refers, oe thing at least certain: between Semprun’s and Ahusser’s course there is @ rupture, The language employed each isnt the same: not only because the words used by each aren the sae, but especialy because the same ‘words take on diferent meanings. Althisir's statements ashe designates ‘himself, thcoreicl. He ha an obvious claim, which i expresed with ‘igor Semprun doubts tha ths lam i legimate, because the igor seems te him too “abstract” But doube never hasbeen and never will be the Instrument of @ scientific statement; only demonstration can provide 2 stiterion. For’ example, as long. 3s Althusser's explanation isn't macherey demonsrated to be false (ot rigorous) it should be considered tre (en ‘domed with a certain degree of knowledge). But thie tnt wht Semprun Goes. He chooses another language whichis less "abstact™ and more ‘senerous: the language ofthe "real and of "practice." This choice takes place les between distinct objects than between levels of statement. The {erm “practice,” for instance, is common to the two languages, but is ‘ale in each language isn't he same. For Althusser practices the object of a theory. Les say that's an object of thought, a concept, to which ‘scentifie analysis canbe applied. For Semprun practice ia “real” ob Jest practice itself in person, insofar as iis gem independently of 2 theory, insofar ast ie mposed on Marx himself before ans theory. The two uses of “practice” can only be confronted, faced off, their confit, ‘can't be resolved. They slide over each other, for they Balog 0 diferent, Incompatible universes. Between Althusser and Semprun there ean be no question of a ‘sdghate.” Between the two of them there is 0 object eal 10 Be ‘hought—given before all thought. Each has his own language; each has "he objet ofthat language. As esl, the two texts arent opposite each ther in a relationship of exchange, siee they are precisely hited. Here Is where the rupture appears. There i a word which can belong to Sem Prun’s vocabulary but which simply can’t have anyplace in Althusser's that word is"dislgue.” There no room for dialogue he sense hat, from the conflict of two discourses, by means of either a resolution in tought o ese real esolution, thee would emerge a common tem which ‘would be the fruit ofthe contradiction. Fom two discourses juntaposed Inthat way nothing ata can emerge: no third dscourse. Let me reiterate thar Betweea those two languages, thus established, theres no middle tr. “That docs’ mean that eter term is wclss, superfluous, or that this ‘debate nhich tn’ one-~isin vain. On the contrary, each (erm s secure ints place. Each is broken against the ofr, Bu each is necessary and charatterisie of a most esseail rupture. In fact, in this "double," IF Althusser well represents unt further notice the language of theory (and he will continue to hold shat place uni such ime as someone efetively takes it away from him), Semprun returns, in what he bebees to be a defense of ideology (asi ideology needed sopmeone to defend i! 10 the very language of ideology. Irs jus lke this im this fase dialogue, the disputed objects the very form of the discourse. false dialogue ‘doesn't exacly mean a dialogue ofthe dea, in which niher side is heard Tes Semprun whe doesn't want to Isten, Semprun who rejects the languae ‘of theory eventhough the language of theory is made to be heard, since theory isthe theory of ideology. We sce that the false symmety of im= posible dialogues must be seaside. The rupture Betwoun the 180 Femuage is certainly the absence of any reciprocity, Bu that absence Is not isl reciprocal seen eee a gegen gree eee sees 120 the mianesota review al his is tre, the problem posed by bringing these wo tet together oes far beyond their stated objets, Behind the problem of humans — ‘hich theoretically a false problem, because if badly posed arises “nother question which is more ero, Although this question would Soom {orbe fat removed from the main ses raised, itn fact what assumes the greatest importance. The question is: what does Mars teach us? where Isis discourse anchored? An easy response would be thatthe domain ‘ofthe marist problematic precisely hat lis the Semprun-Althuser “debate.” Marusm isan open doctrine, in perpetual dialogue with self, theonly one capable of tasing and resolving futful confrontations, But itthat response isnt enough, i, as we have seen, no dialogue occurs Be- tween Semprun and Althusser, if thir positions aren't those of two in- Tevocutors who are inthe process of speaking BY having a face-to-face fencounter, i the true debate fs somewhere other than between the to, bosate thee is nothing between the two, no middle ferm—then we isk reversing the dialogue into a monologue, preferring to hear a singe voice instead ofa debate, remaining deaf to the other and his defense. In other Words, i there isn'ta genuine debate beeween Semprun and Althusser, Is because one of them sighs and the ater who then believes himself to beat the very heart ofthe marist debate in fact ind inself elsewhere, ‘orlong that frontier about which Althusser speaks in his nose, Iron ‘Ger marked wih signposts: there so other way to Marx. The isk isle: SMe fefuse to consider that the unity of marx isn he unity of 80 discourses because it makes no sense to speak about that unity—we're going to have to reect One of the 6w0 discourse cla to unity and oherence, That would be scandalous ot for moral but for theozeical Feaions—provided thatthe meaning of the word unity i understood. Tn fact, that word ike ll those we have encountered until no, has ‘so senses ideological and theoretial. Semprn's ieoloay i 3 deals) fof unity. Move precisely, i san ideology of organic unity a8 he says Fist (is the only definition that we encounter i his discourse, whereas 2 unity of all possible opposites. This appeal fo wnt is the Key 10 the Paragraph on rupture. Semprun aks sto use the term rupture with treme cre," in the last analysis, beease involves a there of division, ‘nheres the organic cohesion of every debate must be (blindly) guaranteed {since every debates good, productiveand so forth) Such uty isin fat {he hegeian reconciliation of opposites, which are feconciled because in {hemlves, inspite of appearance, they haven't ceased to be Menta. “Thus, every dialogue is fruitful because i sa return to the same. But without speaking about the “philosophical” preblem of contradetion, ‘ne know thatthe pactical problem of anit ent so easly resolved. TO realize ity st Just to appeal ro unity, but to go quite along way which Fsnever that of an ideal revonciasion but an effective compromise, Now Imacherey 121 a i oT og hs calc Nn a ce 2 ee et and 122. the minnesota review comedy (pretend not to know what I do know inorder to know what Sou know; I pretend not 10 have any ideas inorder to have your ideas) ‘hat will povigea framework for some lusory epiphany of what i tue, ‘There is no exchange posible between people who don’t know, yet Would pretend to learn. There is no spontaneity of dialogue in which knowledge ‘would appear transparently despite is absence. In this instance, Semprun is sight, the notion of rupture should be sed with extreme care. Wat is found na theoretical discussion only what hasbeen put into it. Maybe hot under the same form, though, of ele the discussion would have frm Which would only be instructive for the one who as 10 learn, But Theoretical discussion i only possible Because it breaks with every other form of discussion, Tha's why it sn adalogue but an incessant polemic, ‘which is crefltoeurantce ts conditions of posibiity ax mush a, and Inaybe even more than, to make them frutf 1, a theoretical dscusison only exists Deease it has a quite par ticular car for is object the later must exist Before can even be did ‘ed. What permits us fo say that this object exists? The criteria must De ‘the same once-or analogous to them —that permit us to say that scence has an object. Now, as we know, it's not enough to say that science has the real fr iis abject. In that sense the expresionsefence would be in "ain and not tsa? sient. Science in applied toa sven really cm. Sees a qualified reality. Thu, science i nly a selenc of the real fom ‘the moment that it sivesform—or rather gives forms—to reality. The real, ‘or the object on which clence depends, always determined By thought. ers calli a concept. Now, a concept isn't just a signal by which the ‘cl might tansmic Hs messages, Because a message has no reali apart Irom either its ex o its statement. Concepts are fist ofall words and

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai