タイトルから受ける印象は「エロっぽい小説」かな、でしたが、立派な哲学書でした。
文体はマリー・アントワネット（の首）が独白する形式です（宇能鴻一郎みたいに、ウソ）。著者は文学者としての才能も十分あるんですね（「デカルトの鏡」読んでみようかな）。多彩な人です。
読み物としてもとても面白いですが、彼独自の哲学が簡易な文章で詰め込まれています。（簡易かどうかは皆さんの判断を知りたいところです。私は彼の本を何冊か読んでいるのでわかりやすかったけど、彼の思想を全く知らない人には意味不明かも。簡単なことはすごく怖いことだというのは安倍晋三を見て皆さんおわかりでしょう。簡単な言葉は思考を停止させますから。）
この本で語られているのは「性と愛」ですが、それは他の事柄でも「普通」とか「当たり前」と言われるものに対して「一般の人」が考えることに対しても言えることです。私達は考えなくてはなりません。なぜ「普通」なの？なぜ「当たり前」なの？「一般の人」って誰？簡単に言えば「普通」のことがあるということは「普通じゃない」ことがあるということです。「一般の人」が居るということはそうじゃない人がいるということです。それは、それらの事柄が歴史的・社会的に作られたもの、人間が作ったものだということです。ということは「変化する」あるいは「変えられる」ことを意味します。
名作です。
「売春は男の性欲を前提にして成り立つものであると同時に、男の性欲は、売春を通して真実のものとして公認される」
「わたしたちはまずもって、ジェンダーを身に着けさせられて、その結果として、セックスを持つ」
「性器というのは、生物学的、解剖学的な器官というより、むしろ、社会的、文化的な器官で、男性器を持つ、女性器を持つということは生物学的性差というより社会的文化的な生き方の問題なのです」「器官から性欲が生まれるのではなく、性欲から性器が生まれる」
「性欲という制服を着けるときに要請される振る舞いが、セックス、それも社会が、一般民衆が、許容する「らしさ」の範囲内でセックスする」
「セックスとは性欲を演じること」
「性的倒錯、異常性愛と呼ばれるようなセックスもあるということに、わたしたちのセックスがいかに、社会的、文化的な振る舞い、行為であるということが物語られている」
「ある特定の人間に愛おしさを感じるというのは、一つの選択であり、感じてもいいという判断が下されているということであり、そこには、理性が、意志が働いている」
「本当に愛しているのかどうか・・・そういう疑問を持つことこそが、愛するっていう
こと」
「生きるっていうことが、そもそも演じること」
「近親相姦の禁止、そのタブーとは、子供に対してよりも、むしろ母親に対して、より強く働いているもので、母親に母性を強いるための仕掛け」
以上は講座からの引用ですが、エピローグで、「性欲、性的快感、そういう言葉は、男の借り物でしかない」「借りものの言葉ですましていると、内容もきっと貧しいものになってしまう。わたしたちは（女性は・・引用者）、自分たち自身で、自分たちの身体にあった、新しい言葉を、新しい概念を作り出してゆくべきだと思う。／性欲なんていう制服は脱ぎ捨てましょう！」と話しかけます。フェミニストにはぜひ考えてほしいことです。
新しい概念を表すには新しい言葉が必要だとも言えるし、既存の言葉が持つ概念を変えていく方法もあると思います。少なくともこの本が出版されて20年、未だに新しい概念が明確になっているとも言えないし、当然それに合った言葉もできていないようです。
新しい概念を作るのは大変です。勉強をしなければならないというのもありますが、それよりも既成の概念にとらわれているからです。それではいくら勉強したって知識は増えるかもしれませんが、既成概念の延長、拡大、普及しかできません。まずは、「当たり前のこと」を疑ってみること。なぜ「当たり前」なのかを考えてみること。これは難しいようで簡単、簡単なようで難しいです。生まれてから今までそういう環境で育ってきたし、周りの社会状況が疑うことを許さないからです。そして「当たり前のこと」を疑ってると発言したり、「当たり前じゃないこと」を行動に移したりすると社会的制裁が待っています。だからほとんどの人、ほとんどの学者は保身に走ります。反対の意思表示をしないことは賛成・肯定していると同じです。でも「一般の人」「普通の人」という「個人」は存在しません。みんな違う考えを持っているはずなのです。バッシングする人たちだって、ほとんどの人の本音は「私もやってみたい」「あの人だけやってずるい」って思っているはずです。
概念規定は変わらなくても、現実は日々変化しています。基本的には悪い方に。でも、物事には常に2つの面があります。例えば、女性がオナニーをするのは当たり前のようになってきました。それは、「オナニー」という男性的な知を女性にも当てはめて規格化し、統治しようという支配者側の意図でもあるし、男性的な知の概念を女性が変革することでもあります。
支配者側の意図と逆の要素を利用すること。力で負ける民衆が戦う道はそこに見いだされると思います。
⟨impressions⟩
The impression from the title was "erotic novel", but it was a good philosophy book.
The style is the form that Marie Antoinette (the head of) is monologous (like Koichiro Uno, lie). The author has enough talent as a literary scholar (let's read the "Cartesian mirror"). A variety of people.
It is very interesting to read, but his original philosophy is packed in simple sentences. (I'd like to know your judgment whether it's simple or not. I've read some of his books and it was easy to understand, but it might not be meaningful to anyone who has no idea of his thoughts. If you look at Shinzo Abe, you know that it's so scary, because simple words stop thinking.)
What is said in this book is "sex and love", but it can also be said that "the ordinary person" thinks about other things that are said to be "normal" or "natural" is. We have to think. Why "normal"? Why "natural"? Who is a "general person"? Put simply, being "normal" means being "unusual". Having a "general person" means that some people are not. It means that those things are made historically and socially, human beings. That means "change" or "can change."
It is a masterpiece.
"Prostitution is based on male libido, while male libido is recognized as true through prostitution."
"We are gender-worn first and as a result have sex."
"The genitals are social and cultural organs, rather than biological and anatomical organs. Having a male genitalia or having a female genitalia is a social culture rather than a biological sex difference. "It is not a matter of organs that produce libido, but that sexual desire produces genitals."
"The behavior required when wearing a uniform called sexual desire is sex, and sex is within the" quality "that society allows the general public."
"Sex is playing libido"
"Sometimes sex is called sexual perversion or extraordinary love, which demonstrates how our sex is a social and cultural behaviour."
"Feeling a certain person lovingly is one of the choices, and the judgment is made that it can be felt, where reason and will work."
"I really love you ... it's the question of having such a question
thing"
"To live is to play in the first place"
"Prohibition of incest, a taboo is something that works more for mothers, rather than for children, and is a mechanism for forcing mothers into maternity."
The above is a quote from the course, but in the epilogue, "Sexual desire, sexual pleasure, such words are only men's borrowings," "If you borrow the words of borrowing, the contents will surely be poor. I think they (women are the quoters) should create their own new words in their bodies and create new concepts./Take off the uniform called libido! " Talk to. What feminists want to think about.
It can be said that new words are needed to express a new concept, and there are ways to change the concept of existing words. At least 20 years after the book was published, the new concept has not yet been clarified, and of course no language has been adapted to it.
Creating new concepts is hard. Sometimes you have to study, but it's more of an established concept. No matter how much you study, your knowledge may increase, but you can only extend, expand, and disseminate existing concepts. First of all, be suspicious of the "natural". Think about why it's "natural". It seems difficult and easy, easy and hard. I have been raised in such an environment since I was born, and I am not allowed to doubt the surrounding social situation. Social sanctions await you if you say you are suspicious of "natural" or take action on "unnatural". So most people, most scholars run for protection. Not expressing the opposite is the same as agreeing or affirming. But there is no "individual" called "general person" or "ordinary person". Everyone must have different ideas. Even those who do bashing, most people think that the real intention is "I want to do it too" and "I'm sloppy just that person".
Even if the concept rules do not change, reality changes every day. Basically for the bad. But things always have two sides. For example, it has become common for women to masturbate. It is the ruler's intention to apply and standardize masturbation, which is masculine, by applying it to women, and to change women's concept of masculine knowledge.
Use the reverse of the intentions of the ruler. I think there is a way for people who lose in power to fight.
The impression from the title was "erotic novel", but it was a good philosophy book.
The style is the form that Marie Antoinette (the head of) is monologous (like Koichiro Uno, lie). The author has enough talent as a literary scholar (let's read the "Cartesian mirror"). A variety of people.
It is very interesting to read, but his original philosophy is packed in simple sentences. (I'd like to know your judgment whether it's simple or not. I've read some of his books and it was easy to understand, but it might not be meaningful to anyone who has no idea of his thoughts. If you look at Shinzo Abe, you know that it's so scary, because simple words stop thinking.)
What is said in this book is "sex and love", but it can also be said that "the ordinary person" thinks about other things that are said to be "normal" or "natural" is. We have to think. Why "normal"? Why "natural"? Who is a "general person"? Put simply, being "normal" means being "unusual". Having a "general person" means that some people are not. It means that those things are made historically and socially, human beings. That means "change" or "can change."
It is a masterpiece.
"Prostitution is based on male libido, while male libido is recognized as true through prostitution."
"We are gender-worn first and as a result have sex."
"The genitals are social and cultural organs, rather than biological and anatomical organs. Having a male genitalia or having a female genitalia is a social culture rather than a biological sex difference. "It is not a matter of organs that produce libido, but that sexual desire produces genitals."
"The behavior required when wearing a uniform called sexual desire is sex, and sex is within the" quality "that society allows the general public."
"Sex is playing libido"
"Sometimes sex is called sexual perversion or extraordinary love, which demonstrates how our sex is a social and cultural behaviour."
"Feeling a certain person lovingly is one of the choices, and the judgment is made that it can be felt, where reason and will work."
"I really love you ... it's the question of having such a question
thing"
"To live is to play in the first place"
"Prohibition of incest, a taboo is something that works more for mothers, rather than for children, and is a mechanism for forcing mothers into maternity."
The above is a quote from the course, but in the epilogue, "Sexual desire, sexual pleasure, such words are only men's borrowings," "If you borrow the words of borrowing, the contents will surely be poor. I think they (women are the quoters) should create their own new words in their bodies and create new concepts./Take off the uniform called libido! " Talk to. What feminists want to think about.
It can be said that new words are needed to express a new concept, and there are ways to change the concept of existing words. At least 20 years after the book was published, the new concept has not yet been clarified, and of course no language has been adapted to it.
Creating new concepts is hard. Sometimes you have to study, but it's more of an established concept. No matter how much you study, your knowledge may increase, but you can only extend, expand, and disseminate existing concepts. First of all, be suspicious of the "natural". Think about why it's "natural". It seems difficult and easy, easy and hard. I have been raised in such an environment since I was born, and I am not allowed to doubt the surrounding social situation. Social sanctions await you if you say you are suspicious of "natural" or take action on "unnatural". So most people, most scholars run for protection. Not expressing the opposite is the same as agreeing or affirming. But there is no "individual" called "general person" or "ordinary person". Everyone must have different ideas. Even those who do bashing, most people think that the real intention is "I want to do it too" and "I'm sloppy just that person".
Even if the concept rules do not change, reality changes every day. Basically for the bad. But things always have two sides. For example, it has become common for women to masturbate. It is the ruler's intention to apply and standardize masturbation, which is masculine, by applying it to women, and to change women's concept of masculine knowledge.
Use the reverse of the intentions of the ruler. I think there is a way for people who lose in power to fight.
[出演者(プロフィール)]
哲学者。東京都生まれ。早稲田大学第一文学部中退。フロイト、フッサール、メルロ・ポンティなどの研究を通じて、独自の身体論を構築し注目をあびる。1990年代、フランス哲学を研究するため7年間パリに遊学
断頭台の露と消えてから200年、自堕落な淫婦と蔑まれた王妃マリー・アントワネットが「夜の哲学講座」を開講。波乱の生涯から思索した「愛と性」を語りつくすユニークな哲学書。
[]
