Professional Documents
Culture Documents
difference simply loses its pertinence. the interpretation that comes after Paul.
There is certainly something like an anti-
Traditionally, universalism is conceived Semitism in primitive Christianity, but not
as the realization of a universal judgment in Paul. Paul is only saying that something
about some real thing. This is something like that constitutes a difference in his world
a grammatical conception of universalism. becomes indifferent in light of the new
Universality as a judgment is something that event. So we do not have a change of
you can find from Aristotle to Kant to evaluation where bad becomes good or good
analytic philosophy today. becomes bad. Rather, it is something much
more like Nietzsche where the difference is
My conception is, on the contrary, a beyond good and evil. This is the same thing
creative one. Universalism is always the for Galileo. Galileo does not say that there is
result of a great process that opens with an no natural movement or that we cant have
event. To create something universal is to go an experience of natural movement, but that
beyond evident differences and separations. from the point of view of the new physics,
This is, in my conviction, the great the distinction between natural and artificial
difference between my conception of movements is no longer pertinent.
universality (which, of course, is not only
my conception) and some traditional JPS: What do you make of Agambens
conceptions of universality. It is also the explicit contention in A Time that
difference between a grammatical Remains that, contra your position, Paul
conception of truth and my conception of is not an advocate of universalism but of
truth as a creation, a process, an event. radical separation? As Agamben puts it,
Paul is instead advocating a separation
But the fact that with a new truth there is to the second power, a separation of
always something like the becoming separation itself, which divides and
indifferent of some evident differences is, in traverses? (79)
my opinion, very important. It is true in the
example of Galileo. It is true in all the AB: I know that Agambens reading of Paul
examples of a new truth. Just this morning, is very different from mine, but is this
Daniel Boyarin, a fine critic of my work, difference really a contradiction? I ask
asked a question about whether or not the because, in fact, the question of separation
difference between Jews and Greeks was belongs to the question of universalism.
relevant to the Pauline situation. Paul, of There is not, in my view, necessarily a
course, knows perfectly well that there are contradiction between the two.
people who are Jews and people who are
Greeks. But the new truth exceeds the When separation is conceived of as a
evident difference between the Jew and the closure, as a closed separation (take, for
Greek. We can only completely receive a example, a closed church), when you
new truth by going beyond such differences. completely separate yourself from your
But this does not mean for Paul that they enemies, the new from the old, then this is
need to change their customs and practices. not at all like a universalism. The formation
Instead, there is a becoming indifferent to of a new particularity, a new closed group,
this difference. leads exactly, for example, to anti-Semitism.
That is why Paul does not say that But in Paul there is an interplay between
circumcision is bad though he also does separation and universalism. For Paul, there
not say that it is good. In light of the event, is certainly a kind of separation necessary
circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision for his universalism because we have
is also nothing. Circumcision is not separated ourselves from the old man. We
something good that becomes bad. That is have, out of this separation, a newness of
life. But it remains a universalism because Event, is not yet translated. So we have an
there is no limit to this separation, there is isolated reading of my work in which my
no closure. The Pauline conception of the clearest example of a truth procedure is
church is not at all the realization of a closed religious. From this it is assumed that it is
separation. Instead, it proposes something only in religion that we can find something
that is open to everybody, a collective like a generic assertion. But this is not true. I
determination, the realization of a separation find in the religious example not really an
in a universal field. So, naturally, there is, example of truth but an example of
for Paul, in the process of universalism, something like a non-philosophical
something like division but this is a division conception of truth. For Paul the distinction
internal to the subject itself. It is not an is the distinction between the philosophical
external division between the subject and point of view and something else. This
others, but a division within the subject. something else is not a new type of truth (as
Every subject has to cross a sort of intimate iek appears to say), but a new way of
division between the old man and the new conceiving truth that is explicitly opposed to
man, between the power of death and the the Greek philosophical tradition.
power of life. So I perfectly understand that
universalism can take the form of a I read Paul not at all as a philosopher but
separation. There is always something like as a new experience of what is probably
an intimate division when universalism something like a truth. And so Paul is not at
takes the form of a separation. all in the same field as my examples of
truths in politics, art, science and love.
But there is also always a risk that this Religion is simply not in the same field.
separation may become closed and turn There is something in my friend Slavojs
universalism against itself. This is always a consideration that is not completely precise
risk. This is true not only in the religious because the comparison is not between
field but also in the revolutionary field. political revolutions, artistic creations, new
Look at what happened when the Leninist theories of science, new experiences of love,
party became closed. But in the beginning it and Paul. The comparison is between
was not at all closed. It was something philosophy and Paul; that is, between my
completely open to the situation, the conception of truth and the Pauline
newness, the movement, and so on. But conception of truth. So religion does not
there is never the pure opposition of make a fifth on the list of politics, science,
universalism and separation because there is art and love. We cannot say that Paul
something like the becoming separate of a occupies a privileged position any more than
universalism. Plato, Hegel, Kierkegaard, or Pascal. I make
some comparisons between Paul and
JPS: How do you respond to ieks Nietzsche or between Paul and Pascal
charge in The Ticklish Subject that because Nietzsche and Pascal are also on the
religion tacitly operates for you as a fifth borderline of philosophy, somewhere
generic procedure (in addition to politics, between philosophy and anti-philosophy. So
art, science, and love) that occupies a there is no body of the generic as such to be
privileged position in relation to the other found in Paul, though there is a theory of the
four because it gives body to the generic universal address of a truth. My reading of
as such? (144) Paul is that he offers a new conception of
truth in general. He offers to us a formal
AB: I think that it is a question of published conception of truth.
books. The English translations of my work
appear in a certain order: first, Manifesto for JPS: In general, what do you take to be
Philosophy, second, Ethics, and third, Saint the decisive difference between your
Paul. But the fundamental book, Being and position and ieks?
world the great and fundamental problem is topology of our world. We are not in the
not between the religious way and the non- same position as in previous centuries.
religious way. Certainly, it is, finally, very Today, religious conviction is important, but
important, but it is not our principal it is not the central problem. The world
problem. We know that today there is cannot be divided into the religious and the
religious conviction that takes the way of non-religious. So the discussion is, for me, a
sacrifice, religious conviction in the way of positive discussion.
enjoyment, and religious conviction in a
third way. So we can see that the distinction Transcribed and edited for fluency
between religious conviction and non- by Adam S. Miller.
religious conviction does not determine the