拉鲁埃-反巴迪欧（二） (6-1)

双合（Doublets）或加倍（doublings）——都是一体的，只是在某种程度上存在细微差别。哲学家们确实启动或加倍折返了这种加倍，将其分子化，撕裂或扭曲（巴迪欧）。例如，德里达为我们提供了识别这一问题的方法：但在最终，将能指，与他异性（alterity）之绝对真理，即刻化为情动时，他仍然将犹太人和希腊人结合在一起，并通过倍增（multiplying）使加倍变得非常明显。那么，他为什么要冒着使天平倾向于希腊影响的风险，去寻求列维纳斯那最超验的 "一 "呢？半希腊半犹太人最终是犹太人吗？还是最终是作为 "同一(same)"的希腊人？当然，他是 "延异"。但是，既然 "延异"是 "同一"或 "均衡（equilibrium）"，它仍然回应着同德勒兹之 "可逆性 "相同的理想，只不过是以一种拉远或疏离的形式而已，那么似乎就不可能摆脱作为终局、作为隐含目的论的 "均衡"的所有痕迹。只有希腊人和列维纳斯才会严谨或一致地提出反对。（原文⬇）

Doublets or doublings—it is all one, with minor nuances one way or the other. Philosophers have indeed initiated or re-doubled this doubling, molecularized it, torn or twisted it (Badiou). Derrida, for example, gave us the means to identify this problem: but in finally immediatizing the signifier and the absolute of alterity as affect, he still combines the Jew and the Greek, and makes the doublings quite manifest by multiplying them. But then why does he seek Levinas’s most transcendent One, at the risk of thus tipping the balance in favor of the Greek influence? Is the half-Greek half-Jew ultimately a Jew?Or ultimately a Greek as “same”? He isdifférance, of course. But since différanceis the same or equilibrium, which still responds to the same ideal as Deleuze’s reversibility, but simply in a distended or distanced form, it seems impossible to rid oneself of all trace of equilibrium as end, as implicit teleology. Only the Greeks and Levinas would be rigorous or coherent in their opposition.

数学联邦政治世界观提示您：看后求收藏（同人小说网http://tongren.me），接着再看更方便。