Why haven't you read Giorgio Agamben?

...

because its not on our top 100 chart? whats the point of this thread. im confused

I've got The Coming Community. Not sure I really grasped it all. Some of his epistemology about Parts, Wholes, Exceptions and Examples was kind of neat.

Because I'm not a communist.

Because he's not a white nationalist who hates women

But I have. Homo Sacer and State of Exception are absolute top-tier.

He's definitely one of the best philosophers currently writing.

Because most lit-browsers are either postering pseuds, high school students or first-year undergraduates.

Agamben is not the easiest thinker to get your head around, y'know. I read Homo Sacer in a university reading group with some grad students and that helped a lot, but lots of his references went over my head, desu.

The thing too is that his writing basically references 8-10 pieces of other literature per page in a way that presupposes the reader having prior knowledge.

canonizes refugees because they're cool outcasts and wants europe and the west to open its borders because they only exist in the biopolitical imaginary

0/10

he does advocate for europe to be separated between north and south though, he basically wants a latin empire, not unlike houellebecq

Have. A morass of verbiage, and very little movement.

I have. I used him heavily in my dissertation.

Congrats.

I apologize ;_;

It's on the list I swear!

what was your dissertion topic?

Currently giving a time of absortion of State of Exception so I can head into Stasis. Very clear thinker, memers who lump him into the "obscurantist" spook should really give Homo Sacer a try, very clear notion which he works very well, not to mention the man worked in the idea for the subsequent 30 years of his life, he very clearly knows what he's talking about and is awfully versed in it.

Longest Ive read by him is The Kingdom and the Glory. 'Morass' poster here. Seemed simultaneously both an involved deconstruction yet morbid fascination with the very idea of 'glory'. Was perhaps too young to read it when i did. (You) rec Sacer as the way to go toward discovering a something new missed initially?

Mostly this

Definitely. I had never read any of his Homo Sacer books, only separate pieces and smaller works here and there, and now that I've started to read them in order, I can't imagine how awful it must have been to piece his thought together during the years, he's following a whole genealogical trace of lots of things - the sacred, the origin of right, the use of self and so on - and I can't imagine reading it out of order.

shut up

he literally thinks refugee camps are the new concentration camps

this whole fetishization of marginalised people is disgusting and his point was better formulated by Girard

the dumbo is an anarchist and hates all forms of "borders" because theyre the antimony of satanic deleuzian "potentialites"

>Implying he's wrong in any way whatsoever

redpill me on Agamben and what precursory reading one should do

The one think I know about Agamben - sorry OP, I haven't read him yet - is that he was in Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew. Which I find interesting, others might not.

Either way, I'm off to /gif/ to lurk the JAV threads.

stop profaning zoe

His main thing is the politization of bare life / bodies, the origins of sovereignity and the state of exception.

Idk probably some Heidegger and Foucault but I've read neither and can follow him pretty well. Benjamin as well, that's how I first got into Agamben.

Pic related is a segment of some bullshit essay I wrote for class a while back regarding Homo Sacer.

The Open is him critiquing Heidegger, I think. I haven't read it but I think Agamben in many ways is trying to go beyond Heidegger/deconstruction.

except thats not what he says at all and he's not fucking deleuzian. damn, youre retarded.

whew, rare heidegger and agamben

He writes about how citizens lose their rights in liberal democracies and the state of emergency. Influenced by Benjamin, Heidegger, Schmitt, Foucault, Debord.

this man knows

I've read the Open, AMA that's not in the book because I didn't understand SHIT

> seems reductionist and pessimistic

stopped reading right there

was this your buzzfeed application?

I saw that on a Greek documentary about him. This and his notion of social deactivation.
Amigo is an active element...

Biopolitics is the question of how might is applied or projected on a collective of humans or even some class of living organisms in some interpretations. The modern state is untintrested in the singal human life as such and therefore blind to anything beyond a bureaucratic application of power on the singal individual. This power is unrestraint in the sense, that depending on the context the human is an object and as such processed in anyway the collective cristalized in the bureaucratic "machine" has intended for this class of "object". The processes that were sucessful in the industrial revolution it's "rationalisation" and standartisation are in a "weird" way applied to humans. In this sense I think the questions lays even before Gorgio Agambens Homo sacer and it goes like this; is the there a political body or is the political body just a biological body within a certain context. I don't think he understands the concept of souvereignity of Schmitt fully, but I find his perspective intresting.

He utilises Schmittian concepts. Might as well be a Nazi

Vaporwave, aesthetics and the City