In this pairing, I find it apparent and obvious that we do not have a multitude of philosophies. We may have a multitude of philosophical proposals, but, in the same manner that Harman critiques a kind of ‘duet-dual’ (Kantian) mode, indeed an issue of two that lends itself to three, but at this three we have the opening for the multitude. The room of the meeting of Harman and Zizek is like a particle collider; within real estimations, the collision will produce a multitude of perspectives and ideas, but the elements themselves are not dealing with what is multitudinous in the possibility of it being ‘essentially’ multitudinous. No.
We have the question of the Two, and what is opened by the Two. In this meeting we are dealing with what I notice as the philosophical discrepancy by which philosophy never gets anywhere but by a method that is grounded in a transcendental omnipotence.
In this situation, we then see that Zizek (though being respectful and tactful) accounts for Harman (his proposals) in his entirety, but Harman only accounts for Zizek in the multiplicity where Zizek is only partly accounted, but essentially withheld (from Harman, in this specific case). We have the ironic situation where Harman is admitting his lack (this as a total conventional perspective), and Zizek is being considerate even while he spells out how it is possible that partial and total views coincide. But see that this is not merely a situation of authorial style or academic resource: It is actually the evidence of the two routes, the two orientations of philosophy at work.
For the significant question is not, as Zizek points out, about who is better or more correct; the question is where is or what constitutes the difference. Yet see further that this difference (again, as Zizek elaborates) cannot every be found and applied through some establishment and application of post-modern terms ( “if we can just more fully understand what Derrida, Badiou and others meant by ‘difference’, then we might more fully understand what Zizek is saying”), but is indeed a difference that, as Francois Laruelle (not on the stage), is understood by one but not understandable by the other, where one accounts for the other, and the other denies the one.
The offense that lay in this simple statement of fact thus defines the religious moment, and is the reason why this particular pairing is significant. For the question, to rephrase Zizek, is not who accounts for whom, but rather, in what manner do each account for the other; not in argumentative posture which recedes into a transcendental unknown (Harman’s receding object), but in exactly the revealing of what each posture is doing, what is entirely present and accounted for in the moment of the situation.
But indo wish we could have heard more from Graham. Slavoj, come on dude; just be quiet for a frw minutes. 😝
HERE is the link again.