Linartas Tuomas

This article examines the ambivalence in the concept of libidinal economy, which we identify in the philosophies of Jean-François Lyotard and Samo Tomšič; they both offer radically different conceptions of libidinal economy. Although emerging from very contrasting perspectives, both theories consider the relationship between desire, the unconscious, and the capitalist economy. After defining these two approaches, we compare them, while marking differences, similarities, influences, and sociopolitical presumptions. Also, we propose a few indicative concepts, which should help to contextualize the identity of the concept of libidinal economy. After critically discussing both theories, we suggest three paradoxes in Lyotard’s approach as well as some weaknesses in Tomšič’s project. It turns out that the concept of libidinal economy is a productive theoretical tool to explore the relationship between philosophy and psychoanalysis, as well as the split in the materialist tradition. Based on that, we claim that the ambivalence of the concept of libidinal economy is a part of much more complex philosophical-historical conflict.

In this article, the notion of entropology introduced by Claude Lévi-Strauss is applied and developed in the context of Georges Bataille’s anthropological philosophy: Bataille’s project is defined as entropological. Four philosophical vectors are chosen for this: the theory of general economy, the concept of decay, the idea of extinction and the notion of inhumanism. The theory of general economy allows us to understand the immanent terrestrial nature of humanity and the negative – entropic – side of the capitalist economy. The concept of decay gives access to the thought of bodily disintegration and decomposition, which is temporality and mortality that split the subject. The idea of extinction speculates on the consequences of humanity’s destructiveness, libidinally charged inertia, and the extreme perspective of entropy’s impact on the planet. The notion of inhumanism suggests a radical rethinking of the human relationship with alienation and exteriority: Bataille’s philosophy is reinterpreted as inhumanist. I conclude that the Lévi-Strauss’s neologism – entropology – can be productively articulated and actualised within the framework of Bataille’s philosophy.

The article considers Georges Bataille’s concept of sovereignty. It argues that Bataille’s concept of sovereignty covers three principal domains: materialist (economic), transcendental (epistemological), and temporal. Here, Bataille’s sovereignty is defined as anti-servile, anti-utilitarian and anti-rationalist. Also, Bataille’s sovereignty is described as egalitarian, rebellious and based on useless and nonproductive consumption. Bataille’s temporal sovereignty is defined as presentism. The article proposes the notions of acephalous sovereignty and political atheology. Finally, the research reveals that Bataille’s concept of sovereignty is more economic than political. This is what makes it original and distinguishes it from other theories of sovereignty.

This paper deals with Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of the death drive from the perspective of speculative philosophy. For this purpose, three philosophers have been chosen: Nick Land, Ray Brassier, and Reza Negarestani. I claim that they gradually radicalised the Freudian thought: Land expanded it to capitalist economy and terrestrial geotrauma; Brassier shifted it towards a solar catastrophe and the prospect of extinction; Negarestani incorporated it into the exteriority of cosmic contingency. This way, Freud’s legacy emerges as a transcendental, epistemological and speculative instrument to tackle Meillassoux’s problem of correlation. I consider why this trajectory has ceased: I suggest a hypothesis that Bataille’s influence has not been overcome, especially in the case of Negarestani. I offer several vectors, according to which, Bataille could serve as an opportunity for openness to the Outside and a chance to continue the trajectory of the speculative death drive. I suggest that it is possible to reconsider Bataille as one of the precursors to the contemporary speculative thought.

In this article, the anti-anthropocentric philosophy of Nick Land is discussed from the perspective of the concept of capital – capital becomes a philosophical problem. The origin of Land’s conception of capital as artificial intelligence alien to humanity is traced from the theory of libidinal materialism, the transcendental philosophy of Kant, and also from the historical and cultural background. The ideas of Deleuze and Guattari let Land think of capital as machinically and cybernetically accelerating techno-capital – Land’s intense relation to the process of acceleration is defined here as ecstasy. Also, the problematic interpretation of Deleuze and Guattari is noted, the processes of automatisation and autonomisation are considered, and Land’s teleological vision of technological singularity is criticised, especially from the point of the threats of the climate crisis. Here is shown that the philosophy of Land affectively follows the relevant and important tendencies of capitalism, but suffers from some inner contradictions and paradoxes, according to which we can reasonably doubt the philosopher’s ecstatic celebration of the abyss between capital and human subjectivity.