齐泽克对乔治巴塔耶的误解

https://evanjackdebate.medium.com/bataille-avec-et-contre-%C5%BEi%C5%BEek-aporetic-materialism-and-the-passion-of-the-real-15ecc00befe4

Bataille avec et contre Žižek: Aporetic Materialism and the Passion of the Real Bataille avec et contre Žizek：疑难唯物主义和真实的激情

Evan Jack

·

Following

11 min read·Sep 30, 2021

1

06/06/2021

Slavoj Žižek is the celebrity philosopher of our day. He is loved by many who are on many different sides. Ultimately, it is inevitable to have a certain level of respect for Žižek and his work. But he is not without problems. 斯拉沃热·齐泽克是当今著名的哲学家。他受到来自不同方面的许多人的爱戴。最终，对齐泽克和他的作品有一定程度的尊重是不可避免的。但他也不是没有问题。

For Žižek, Bataille is “THE philosopher of the passion of the Real”.[1] Now, this begs the question of “what is the passion of the Real?”. Now, obviously, I am no authority on any subject, nor do I claim to be; I know nothing! How this book of mine is to be received will be interesting, hopefully it will be critiqued, so I, wanting to respond, will read Bataille even closer, and when I release my second book, as a response to those critiques, a even finer interpretation of Bataille will be forged! Though, I doubt this book will garner much attention, just like Bataille’s work did during his lifetime. But let’s answer the question that has been posed. Essentially, ‘the passion of the Real’ is an experience which shatters the subject in the excessive violence of the Real. In this sense, Žižek may be right, assuming I am correct about what the passion of the Real is, though I may not be. If the passion of the Real means anything else, as Kennedy suggests it does, then Bataille is not the philosopher of the passion of the Real. But I would much rather use the term ‘base matter’ instead of the term ‘the Real’. Žižek goes to show how much of a Lacanian Bataille is, but we must ask ourselves the question “is it not that Lacan is Bataillean?”. What I mean by this is that it seems to me that Lacan took more from Bataille than Bataille took from Lacan, if Bataille even took anything. But of course, you may say that “Bataille is mentioned very few times by Lacan”. I would respond to this by saying “this is undoubtedly true, and it is this truth which proves my assertion”. Let me explain, within the work of Lacan, Bataille is the Real, is the base matter of Lacan’s work. Bataille is rarely spoken of, if ever, by Lacan. Does this lack of speech, this silence, not reflect our relation to the Real which is one of impossibility? One cannot speak of or conceptualize the Real, just like Lacan does not speak of or conceptualize Bataille. Is it not fair to say then that Žižek, in his “Lacanianism,” is actually more Bataillean then he would want us to think? I would say yes… 对于齐泽克来说，巴塔耶是“真实激情的哲学家”。[1]现在，这就引出了一个问题：“真实的激情是什么？”。显然，我在任何问题上都不是权威，我也不声称自己是权威。我什么都不知道！我的这本书如何被接受将会很有趣，希望它会受到批评，所以我，想要回应，会更仔细地阅读巴塔耶，当我出版我的第二本书时，作为对这些批评的回应，一个更好的巴塔耶的演绎将被锻造！不过，我怀疑这本书是否会像巴塔耶生前的作品那样引起太多关注。但让我们回答一下已经提出的问题。本质上，“真实的激情”是一种在真实的过度暴力中粉碎主体的体验。从这个意义上说，齐泽克可能是对的，假设我对真实界的激情是什么是正确的，尽管我可能不是。如果真实的激情意味着别的什么，正如肯尼迪所暗示的那样，那么巴塔耶就不是真实的激情的哲学家。但我更愿意使用术语“基础物质”而不是术语“真实”。齐泽克试图表明拉康式的巴塔耶有多少，但我们必须问自己这样一个问题：“拉康难道不是巴塔耶式的吗？”。我这样说的意思是，在我看来，拉康从巴塔耶那里得到的东西比巴塔耶从拉康那里得到的还要多，如果巴塔耶甚至接受了什么的话。当然，你可能会说“拉康很少提到巴塔耶”。我对此的回应是：“这无疑是正确的，也正是这个事实证明了我的主张”。让我解释一下，在拉康的作品中，巴塔耶是真实的，是拉康作品的基础物质。拉康很少谈及巴塔耶。 这种缺乏言语、这种沉默难道没有反映出我们与真实的关系是一种不可能的关系吗？人们无法谈论或概念化实在界，就像拉康不谈论或概念化巴塔耶一样。那么，齐泽克在他的“拉康主义”中实际上比他希望我们想象的更加巴塔耶主义，这难道不公平吗？我会说是的……

But Žižek’s “ties” to Bataille does not stop here. Let us go further, let us go deeper into the heart of the Real that undoes us in its traumatic and exuberant violence which is like the Sun. 但齐泽克与巴塔耶的“联系”并不止于此。让我们走得更远，让我们更深入地进入真实的核心，它像太阳一样，在其创伤性和旺盛的暴力中摧毁了我们。

Before I continue, I want to thank Kevin Kennedy for graciously emailing me a pdf of his essay The aporias of matter which was stuck behind a paywall I couldn’t pay as I do not have the funds to buy the book it is in. So, this essay, and my writings which involve his book on Bataille, are meant to be my return to him. 在我继续之前，我要感谢凯文·肯尼迪慷慨地通过电子邮件给我发送了他的论文《物质的难题》的 pdf 文件，该论文被困在付费墙后面，我无法支付，因为我没有资金购买它所在的书。 、这篇文章，以及我的著作（其中涉及他关于巴塔耶的书），都是我对他的回报。

In their essay on Slavoj Žižek found within Slavoj Žižek and Dialectical Materialism, Adrian Johnston calls Žižek’s materialism a ‘materialism without materialism’.[2] Is this not exactly how we would describe Bataille’s base materialism? Does Bataille not also have a religion without religion, writing without writing, etc.? 在《斯拉沃热·齐泽克与辩证唯物主义》中发现的关于斯拉沃热·齐泽克的文章中，阿德里安·约翰斯顿称齐泽克的唯物主义是“没有唯物主义的唯物主义”。 [2]这不正是我们描述巴塔耶的基本唯物主义的方式吗？巴塔耶不也有没有宗教的宗教、没有文字的写作等等吗？

Before we move forward in the comparative analysis of Žižek’s materialism and Bataille’s materialism, let us first look at Žižek’s critique of Bataille. 在对齐泽克的唯物主义和巴塔耶的唯物主义进行比较分析之前，我们先来看看齐泽克对巴塔耶的批判。

As always, let’s look at Žižek’s critique of Bataille line by line: 一如既往，让我们逐行看看齐泽克对巴塔耶的批评：

1. “This notion of the modern, Cartesian subject qua the radical negativity of the double (self-relating) sacrifice also enables us to demarcate the paradoxical place of the theories of Georges Bataille, that is, of Bataille’s fascination with the ‘real’, material sacrifice, with the different forms of holocaust and of the excessve destruction of (economic, social, etc.) reality”.[3] “现代笛卡尔主体作为双重（自我关联）牺牲的彻底否定性的这一概念也使我们能够界定乔治·巴塔耶理论的矛盾之处，即巴塔耶对‘真实’、物质的迷恋。牺牲，以及不同形式的大屠杀和对（经济、社会等）现实的过度破坏”。[3]
2. “On the one hand, of course, Bataille’s topic is modern subjectivity, the radical negativity implied in the position of the pure transcendental subject. On the other hand, Bataille’s universe remains the pre-Newtonian universe of balanced circular movement, or — to put it in a different way — his notion of subjectivity is definitively pre-Kantian: Bataille’s ‘subject’ is not yet the pure void (the transcendental point of self-negating negativity), but remains an inner-worldly, positive force. Within these co-ordinates, the negativity which characterizes the modern subject can express itself only in the guise of a violent destruction which throws the entire circuit of nature off the rails. It is as if, in a kind of unique short circuit, Bataille projects the negativity of the modern subject backwards, into the ‘closed’, pre-modern Aristotelian universe of balanced circular movement, within which this negativity can materialize itself only as an ‘irrational’, excessive, non-economical expenditure. In short, what Bataille fails to take note of is that the modern (Cartesian) subject no longer needs to sacrifice goat’s intestines, his children, and so on, since his very existence already entails the most radical (redoubled, self-relating) sacrifice, the sacrifice of the very kernel of his being”.[4] 当然，一方面，巴塔耶的主题是现代主体性，即纯粹先验主体地位中隐含的激进否定性。另一方面，巴塔耶的宇宙仍然是前牛顿的平衡圆周运动的宇宙，或者换句话说，他的主体性概念绝对是前康德的：巴塔耶的“主体”还不是纯粹的虚无（自我否定消极性的超越点），但仍然是一种内在世俗的积极力量。在这些坐标中，现代主体的消极性只能以暴力破坏的形式表达出来，这种破坏使整个自然循环脱轨。就好像，在一种独特的短路中，巴塔耶将现代主体的消极性向后投射到“封闭的”、前现代亚里士多德的平衡循环运动的宇宙中，在这个宇宙中，这种消极性只能以“不合理的、过度的、不经济的支出。简而言之，巴塔耶没有注意到的是，现代（笛卡尔）主体不再需要牺牲山羊肠、他的孩子等等，因为他的存在本身已经意味着最彻底的（加倍的、自我关联的）牺牲，牺牲了他存在的核心”。[4]
3. “Incidentally, this failure of Bataille also throws a new light on the sacrificial violence, the obsession with the ultimate twilight of the universe, at work in Nazism: in it, we also encounter the reinscription of the radical negativity characteristic of the modern subject into the closed ‘pagan’ universe in which the stability of the social order is guaranteed by some kind of repeated sacrificial gesture — what we encounter in the libidinal economy of Nazism is the modern subjectivity perceived from the standpoint of the pre-modern ‘pagan’ universe”.[5] 顺便说一句，巴塔耶的失败也让人们对纳粹主义中的牺牲暴力、对宇宙终极黄昏的痴迷有了新的认识：在其中，我们还遇到了现代主体的激进消极特征被重新写入到纳粹主义中。封闭的“异教”宇宙，其中社会秩序的稳定性是通过某种反复的牺牲姿态来保证的——我们在纳粹主义的力比多经济中遇到的是现代的从前现代“异教”宇宙的角度来看的主观性”。[5]

Now for my response: 现在我的回应：

1. Firstly, Kevin Kennedy notes that “this is a gross misreading of” Bataille’s theory of sacrifice because “sacrifice, for Bataille, is never a literal act, but rather always a simulated exposure to non-meaning, the giving of oneself to an encounter which always remains impossible”.[6] Secondly, Bataille does not see the modern Cartesian subject as the negativity of sacrifice because sacrifice is not negativity, it is affirmation. 首先，凯文·肯尼迪指出，“这是对巴塔耶牺牲理论的严重误读”，因为“对于巴塔耶来说，牺牲从来都不是一种字面上的行为，而总是一种模拟地暴露在无意义的环境中，将自己奉献给一种遭遇，总是不可能”。[6]其次，巴塔耶并不将现代笛卡尔主体视为牺牲的否定性，因为牺牲不是否定，而是肯定。
2. Firstly, Žižek has a horrible understanding of Bataille’s cosmology (which I will write an essay on later). For Bataille, the universe is not in balance, it is in disequilibrium, it is formless. Secondly, I can not say that I agree with Žižek’s interpretation of the Bataillean subject because it is not a positive force. The subject is a limit which is inscribed via negativity (of prohibition and work), though it is not inscribed by the negativity of sacrifice like Žižek says it is. Thirdly, the subject does not “express” itself in its violent destruction because it is in this dissolution that it stays silent. Fourthly, for Bataille, expenditure is not “materialized negativity” because expenditure is (im)purely affirmative. Fifthly, the subject does exist via negation but, again, sacrifice is not negation. The subject’s existence doesn’t entail the sacrifice of their being because the subject’s existence is a stabilization which is contrary to the destabilization that is sacrifice. 首先，齐泽克对巴塔耶的宇宙论的理解很糟糕（我稍后会写一篇文章）。对于巴塔耶来说，宇宙并不平衡，它处于不平衡状态，它是无形的。其次，我不能说我同意齐泽克对巴塔耶主体的解释，因为它不是一种积极的力量。主体是一个通过消极性（禁止和工作）铭刻的限制，尽管它并不像齐泽克所说的那样通过牺牲的消极性铭刻。第三，主体并没有在其暴力破坏中“表达”自己，因为它在这种消解中保持沉默。第四，对于巴塔耶来说，支出不是“物质化的消极性”，因为支出是（不）纯粹的肯定性的。第五，主体确实通过否定而存在，但牺牲并不是否定。主体的存在并不意味着他们存在的牺牲，因为主体的存在是一种稳定，与牺牲的不稳定相反。
3. Firstly, Bataille is not a nazi theoretically, logically, practically, effectively, etc.. Bataille doesn’t hold that there is sacrificial violence within Nazism because the violence of the Nazis was always teleological. In other words, the holocaust was not expenditure because the holocaust, for the Nazis, had the use-value of eliminating the Jews, Homosexuals, etc. which was useful for the end of reaching their supposed “utopia” which is nothing but the most servile and slavish “utopia” to ever be thought, as the thought of Hitler that is Nazism is the farthest thing from the thought of Nietzsche which is sovereign. Secondly, Žižek here presupposes that the subject and the social order which it exists in is stabilized by the double sacrifice which as we know is not true (see answers to point 1 and 2). 首先，巴塔耶在理论上、逻辑上、实践上、效果上都不是纳粹。巴塔耶并不认为纳粹主义内部存在牺牲性暴力，因为纳粹的暴力始终是目的论的。换句话说，大屠杀不是支出，因为大屠杀对于纳粹来说具有消灭犹太人、同性恋者等的使用价值，这有助于最终达到他们所谓的“乌托邦”，而“乌托邦”只不过是最重要的。希特勒的纳粹主义思想与尼采的主权思想相去甚远。其次，齐泽克在这里预设了主体及其存在的社会秩序是通过双重牺牲来稳定的，据我们所知，这是不正确的（见第1点和第2点的答案）。

Now that I have responded to Žižek’s critique of Bataille, let us move on to a comparative analysis of their theories of materialism. 现在我已经回应了齐泽克对巴塔耶的批评，让我们继续对他们的唯物主义理论进行比较分析。

For Kennedy, Bataille and Žižek’s theories of materialism are quite similar. He says this for a few reasons: 对于肯尼迪来说，巴塔耶和齐泽克的唯物主义理论非常相似。他这么说有几个原因：

1. The similarity of Žižek and Bataille’s critiques of idealists and materialists. 齐泽克和巴塔耶对唯心主义者和唯物主义者的批判有相似之处。
2. The similarity of Žižekian and Bataillean theories of subject formation 齐泽克和巴塔耶主体形成理论的相似性
3. The similarity of Žižek and Bataille’s theories of desire and the object. 齐泽克和巴塔耶的欲望和客体理论的相似之处。
4. The way both see the subject as a stain on matter, therefore meaning matter is base/impure and not ideal/pure. 两者都将主题视为物质上的污点，因此意味着物质是基础/不纯粹的，而不是理想/纯粹的。
5. The similarity of how Žižek and Bataille believe the realm that exceeds the discursive is formed. 齐泽克和巴塔耶都认为超越话语的境界是如何形成的，这是相似的。

The similarity of how Žižek and Bataille believe the realm that exceeds the discursive is formed. 齐泽克和巴塔耶都认为超越话语的境界是如何形成的，这是相似的。

Firstly, let us look at Žižek’s idea of the stain. For Žižek, the stain is “an inexplicable object or mysterious detail ‘that ‘sticks out’, that does not ‘fit’ into the symbolic network of reality’”.[7] Žižek gives the example of the Renaissance portrait titled The Ambassadors (see below): 首先，让我们看看齐泽克的污点概念。对于齐泽克来说，污点是“一个无法解释的物体或神秘的细节，‘突出’，不‘融入’现实的象征网络”。 [7]齐泽克举了文艺复兴时期肖像画《大使》的例子（见下文）：

The skull on the picture, from the position of the front, is a stain on the picture, but, at the same time, from the position of the side, the rest of the picture becomes the stain on the skull. This is the relation of matter and subject. Matter is stained by the subject and the subject is stained by matter. This is why matter is never pure and always base, and this why, at the same time, the subject “comes from” matter and thus, Bataille and Žižek can still claim to be “materialists” even if the “matter” they convince of is a ‘matter without matter’. It is because of the fact that the subject stains matter that Žižek holds the position of an aporetic materialism in which the subject is “neither wholly inside nor wholly outside matter, challenging both the idealist, religious notion of the subject as a detached observer (spirit, soul, disembodied life force), as well as the naturalist, neurobiological conception of subjectivity as just another part of material reality (reducible to brain cells or neuronal processes)”.[9] 图片上的头骨，从正面的位置来看，是图片上的一个污点，但同时，从侧面的位置来看，图片的其余部分则变成了头骨上的污点。这就是物质与主体的关系。物质被主体玷污，主体也被物质玷污。这就是为什么物质永远不是纯粹的、总是卑鄙的，这就是为什么同时，主体“来自”物质，因此，巴塔耶和齐泽克仍然可以声称自己是“唯物主义者”，即使他们相信的“物质”是“无事之事”。正是由于主体玷污了物质这一事实，齐泽克才持有一种疑难唯物主义的立场，其中主体“既不完全在物质之内，也不完全在物质之外，挑战了唯心主义、宗教观念，即主体作为一个超然的观察者（精神） 、灵魂、无形的生命力），以及自然主义、神经生物学的主观性概念，作为物质现实的另一部分（可简化为脑细胞或神经元过程）”。[9]

Kennedy notes something quite interesting, when he suggests “that Žižek dismisses Bataille’s work because the latter prefigures, and simultaneously subverts, Žižek’s twin notions of materialism and subjectivity, threatening thereby to undermine or stain their conceptual purity”.[10] 肯尼迪指出了一些非常有趣的事情，他表示“齐泽克驳斥了巴塔耶的作品，因为后者预示并同时颠覆了齐泽克的唯物主义和主观性双重概念，从而威胁到破坏或玷污其概念的纯粹性”。 [10]

Žižek rejects the traditional materialist view that matter is something pure, stable, etc. and sees it as “shaped by the subject’s relation to it, which is essentially a relation of language”.[11] Bataille agrees with this, but he also adds the category of ‘raw phenomena’ (which is desire?). 齐泽克拒绝传统的唯物主义观点，即物质是纯粹的、稳定的等，并将其视为“由主体与其关系塑造的，这本质上是一种语言的关系”。 [11]巴塔耶同意这一点，但他还添加了“原始现象”的范畴（即欲望？）。

Let us look at Bataille’s theory of subject formation. Kennedy holds that Bataille’s subject is formed out of the “fundamental tension between” the two realms of continuity and discontinuity.[12] Discontinuity in this respect could be reduced down to a realm of language, a regime of discursivity. This would have the implication that it is language that forms the subject. This shows even more of a parallel between Žižek, Lacan, and Bataille. Continuity then is that realm that exceeds language. If we see discontinuity as (the realm of) the subject and then continuity as (base) matter then we can understand this relationship between Bataille and Žižek further. The “Bataillean subject is thus constructed as a blindspot, a nothingness — or even a stain — at the heart of material reality”.[13] 让我们看看巴塔耶的主体形成理论。肯尼迪认为，巴塔耶的主题是由连续性和不连续性两个领域的“基本张力”形成的。 [12]这方面的不连续性可以归结为语言领域、话语体系。这意味着语言构成了主语。这更加显示了齐泽克、拉康和巴塔耶之间的相似之处。那么连续性就是超越语言的境界。如果我们将不连续性视为主体（领域），然后将连续性视为（基础）物质，那么我们就可以进一步理解巴塔耶和齐泽克之间的这种关系。 “巴塔耶式的主体因此被构建为物质现实中心的盲点、虚无——甚至是污点”。 [13]

Kennedy sees that it is this loss of continuity that causes the subject to desire to return to a continuous mode of being.[14] But achieving a return is impossible as a return would entail the subject’s undoing. I partly disagree with Kennedy on his conception of Bataille’s subject formation because of a few facts. Firstly, it is wrong because of the Hegelianism latent within Bataille’s conception of the subject. Bataille agrees with the master-slave dialectic and I think that Kennedy is leaving this out to create links between Bataille and Žižek that need not be created. This also means that continuity does exist contrary to Kennedy’s position that it has never existed. Secondly, Bataille’s principle of insufficiency is the principle of (isolate) being. This means that there is an ontological level to this. When Bataille speaks of Being (which is conceptually analogous to continuity), he does not speak of it as something that does not exist. If he did speak of Being as actually existing then God would be a fiction for Bataille. This is problematic for Kennedy because God does “exist” for Bataille as Bataille saw Sade, who held God as a fiction, as reducing the intensity of transgression by treating God as a fiction. Thirdly, I want to say that language does constitute the subject, as does work and taboo. But the subject arises out of desire. The subject arises out of the desire to be. Thirdly, Kennedy argues that continuity is not some noumenal realm but rather “a deeper reality beyond the phenomenon”.[15] I want to put forward Nick Land’s conception of base matter as a fanged noumenon, a noumenon which has been freed from the Kantian chain of being the category of nothing that is ens rationis. In other words, for Land, I would argue Bataille, and us, the noumenon goes from being a category of nothing to a category of NOTHING. Thus, base matter, and therefore continuity, is noumenal contrary to the Lacanian wails of Kennedy. 肯尼迪认为正是这种连续性的丧失导致主体渴望回到连续的存在模式。 [14]但实现回归是不可能的，因为回归将导致主体的毁灭。由于一些事实，我部分不同意肯尼迪对巴塔耶主题形成的看法。首先，这是错误的，因为巴塔耶的主体概念中潜藏着黑格尔主义。巴塔耶同意主从辩证法，我认为肯尼迪忽略了这一点，是为了在巴塔耶和齐泽克之间建立不必要的联系。这也意味着连续性确实存在，这与肯尼迪从未存在过的立场相反。其次，巴塔耶的不足原则就是（孤立）存在原则。这意味着这有一个本体论层面。当巴塔耶谈到存在（在概念上类似于连续性）时，他并没有将其视为不存在的东西。如果他确实说存在是实际存在的，那么上帝对巴塔耶来说就是一个虚构的故事。这对肯尼迪来说是有问题的，因为上帝对巴塔耶来说确实“存在”，正如巴塔耶认为萨德将上帝视为虚构，通过将上帝视为虚构来减少犯罪的强度。第三，我想说，语言确实构成了主体，工作和禁忌也是如此。但这个话题是出于欲望而产生的。主题源于存在的愿望。第三，肯尼迪认为连续性不是某种本体领域，而是“超越现象的更深层次的现实”。 [15]我想提出尼克·兰德的基本物质概念，认为它是一个长着尖牙的本体，一个已经从康德的“无理性”范畴中解放出来的本体。 换句话说，我认为巴塔耶认为，对于土地和我们来说，本体从一个“无”的类别变成了一个“无”的类别。因此，基础物质以及连续性在本体上与肯尼迪的拉康式哀号相反。

Kennedy then speaks of the Žižekian subject as arising out of symbolic castration and the lack of the Real, which does not exist. Thus, my first issue with Žižek is his use of castration in his theory of the subject and its formation (I will explain my issue with this later in this essay). Before we look at my second issue with Žižek let’s define symbolic castration. Kennedy defines symbolic castration as the event where the subject’s “presumed unity or completeness is traded in for the symbolic universe of meaning and sense”.[16] In other words, symbolic castration is the event where the subject arises, as Symbolic has risen, out of the loss (and therefore, in the future, the subject is constituted by the lack) of the Real. This is my second issue with Žižek then: he is not Hegelian enough. I do think it is important to note that the implication of the objet petit a being “the object which is shaped or distorted by the subject’s desires and fears” is the fact that the objet petit a is not the object of desire but rather the object in desire.[17] 肯尼迪随后谈到齐泽克的主题是由于象征性的阉割和现实的缺乏而产生的，而现实并不存在。因此，我对齐泽克的第一个问题是他在主体理论及其形成中对阉割的使用（我将在本文后面解释我的问题）。在我们看齐泽克的第二期之前，让我们先定义一下象征性阉割。肯尼迪将象征性阉割定义为主体“假定的统一性或完整性被换取意义和意义的象征性宇宙”的事件。 [16]换句话说，象征性阉割是主体从真实界的丧失中升起的事件，因为象征性已经上升了（因此，在未来，主体是由缺乏构成的）。这是我与齐泽克的第二个问题：他还不够黑格尔。我确实认为重要的是要注意，小客体 a是“被主体的欲望和恐惧塑造或扭曲的客体”，这一事实是小客体 a不是欲望的客体，而是客体。在欲望中。[17]

Lastly, let us look at how Bataille goes beyond Žižek. As I mentioned earlier, my first issue with Žižek’s was his use of castration to constitute the subject. I take issue with this because it ultimately means that Žižek’s materialism doesn’t escape idealism because “Žižek ultimately stabilizes or purifies his theory by tying it to Freud’s theory of castration, thereby reducing the object of desire to the maternal Thing”.[18] Bataille’s base materialism still exceeds Žižek’s aporetic materialism without matter because “Bataille’s conception of matter … is not limited by castration”.[19] 最后，让我们看看巴塔耶是如何超越齐泽克的。正如我之前提到的，我对齐泽克的第一个问题是他使用阉割来构成主题。我对此持异议，因为这最终意味着齐泽克的唯物主义并没有逃脱唯心主义，因为“齐泽克通过将其与弗洛伊德的阉割理论联系起来，最终稳定或净化了他的理论，从而将欲望的对象减少到母性事物”。 [18]巴塔耶的基础唯物主义仍然超过了齐泽克的无物质的疑难唯物主义，因为“巴塔耶的物质概念……不受阉割的限制”。 [19]

Bibliography 参考书目

Albarelli, Andrea. “The Ambassadors (1533).” Research Gate, January 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Ambassadors-1533-In-this-artwork-Hans-Holbein-depicts-a-perspectively-transformed_fig3_283556973. 阿尔巴雷利，安德里亚。 “大使们（1533）。”研究之门，2015 年 1 月。https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Ambassadors-1533-In-this-artwork-Hans-Holbein-depicts-a-perspectively-transformed_fig3_283556973。

Johnston, Adrian. “Materialism without Materialism: Slavoj Žižek and the Disappearance of Matter.” In Slavoj Žižek and Dialectical Materialism, edited by Agon Hamza and Frank Ruda, 3–22. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. 约翰斯顿、阿德里安. “没有唯物主义的唯物主义：斯拉沃热·齐泽克和物质的消失。”载于《斯拉沃热·齐泽克与辩证唯物主义》 ，阿贡·哈姆扎和弗兰克·鲁达编辑，3-22。纽约州纽约：帕尔格雷夫·麦克米伦，2016。

Kennedy, Kevin. “The aporias of matter: Bataille’s subjective stain and/at the origin of Žižek’s materialism.” In Stains/Les taches: Communication and Contamination in French and Francophone Literature and Culture, edited by Blake Gutt and Zoe Angelis, 181–199. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2019. 肯尼迪、凯文. “物质的难题：巴塔耶的主观污点和/齐泽克唯物主义的起源。”载于《Stains/Les taches：法语和法语文学与文化中的交流与污染》 ，布莱克·古特和佐伊·安吉利斯编辑，181-199。纽约州纽约：彼得·朗，2019。

Žižek, Slavoj. “Ideology III: To Read Too Many Books Is Harmful.” Slavoj Zizek — Ideology III. Lacan.com, 1997. https://www.lacan.com/zizchemicalbeats.html. 齐泽克，斯拉沃伊。 《意识形态三：书读得太多有害。》斯拉沃热·齐泽克——意识形态 III。 Lacan.com，1997。https ://www.lacan.com/zizchemicalbeats.html。

— — — . The Indivisible Remainder: On Schelling and Related Matters. New York, NY: Verso, 2007. ————。不可分割的余数：论谢林及相关问题。纽约州纽约：Verso，2007 年。

References 参考

[1]: Adrian Johnston, “Materialism without Materialism: Slavoj Žižek and the Disappearance of Matter,” in Slavoj Žižek and Dialectical Materialism, ed. Agon Hamza and Frank Ruda (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 3–22, 3. [1]：阿德里安·约翰斯顿，“没有唯物主义的唯物主义：斯拉沃热齐泽克和物质的消失”，载于斯拉沃热齐泽克和辩证唯物主义，编辑。 Agon Hamza 和 Frank Ruda（纽约，纽约：Palgrave Macmillan，2016），第 3-22 页，3。

[3]: Slavoj Žižek, The Indivisible Remainder: On Schelling and Related Matters (New York, NY: Verso, 2007), 124. [3]：斯拉沃伊·齐泽克， 《不可分割的剩余部分：论谢林及相关事务》 （纽约，纽约：Verso，2007），124。

[4]: Ibid., 124–125. [4]：同上，124-125。

[5]: Ibid., 125. [5]：同上，125。

[6]: Kevin Kennedy, “The aporias of matter: Bataille’s subjective stain and/at the origin of Žižek’s materialism,” in Stains/Les taches: Communication and Contamination in French and Francophone Literature and Culture, ed. Blake Gutt and Zoe Angelis (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2019), pp. 181–199, 184. [6]：凯文·肯尼迪，“物质的难题：巴塔耶的主观污点和/齐泽克唯物主义的起源”，载于《Stains/Les taches：法语和法语文学与文化中的传播与污染》 ，编辑。 Blake Gutt 和 Zoe Angelis（纽约，纽约：Peter Lang，2019），第 181-199 页，184。

[7]: Ibid., 181. [7]：同上，181。

[8]: Andrea Albarelli, “The Ambassadors (1533),” (Research Gate, January 2015), https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Ambassadors-1533-In-this-artwork-Hans-Holbein-depicts-a-perspectively-transformed_fig3_283556973. [8]：Andrea Albarelli，“大使（1533）”（Research Gate，2015 年 1 月），https: //www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Ambassadors-1533-In-this-artwork-Hans-Holbein -描绘了透视变换的_fig3_283556973。

[9]: Kevin Kennedy, “The aporias of matter: Bataille’s subjective stain and/at the origin of Žižek’s materialism,” in Stains/Les taches: Communication and Contamination in French and Francophone Literature and Culture, ed. Blake Gutt and Zoe Angelis (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2019), pp. 181–199, 182. [9]：凯文·肯尼迪，“物质的难题：巴塔耶的主观污点和/齐泽克唯物主义的起源”，载于《Stains/Les taches：法语和法语文学与文化中的传播与污染》 ，编辑。 Blake Gutt 和 Zoe Angelis（纽约，纽约：Peter Lang，2019），第 181–199 页，182。

[10]: Ibid., 184. [10]：同上，184。