いつのインタビューかが明記されていません。それだけで本書に不信感を感じてしまいます。
ガブリエルの著作は何作か読んでいますが、私には理解できないことが多いです。もちろんそれは私の勉強不足です。本書も分かりやすく語っているのでしょうが、とても矛盾した内容に満ちています。これは、翻訳者が自分にひきつけて訳したのではないかと思ってしまうところもあるので、原文（英語）を公開してほしいです。
例えばガブリエルが「トランプは正しい」と言っていますが、それは「トランプがアメリカ社会（利潤追求という制度）に従った発言をしているから正しい」のであって、「トランプという人間が正しい」と言っているわけではないと推察できますが、しっかり読まないと「私はトランプ（新自由主義）を支持します」と誤読してしまいます。彼がもしそう思っているとしても、それは「トランプ」「新自由主義」というものの存在を一つの「事実」として認めているということ以外ではないと思います。それが「新しい実在論」の基本です。「事実の認定」と「価値（良い悪い、善悪）判断」は別のことです。
それを前提にしながら本書と読めば、たくさんの得ることがあると思います。
第Ⅶ章「表象の危機」で「表象の規範性は表象の中にある」という「間違った考え」、「イメージには、本質的によいか悪いかといった内的属性はありません」という言葉は、今の「ディープファイク」を考える上での参考になります。でも、それだけでは「ディープフェイク」の根本にはたどり着けません。
写真は日本語では「真」を「写す」と書きますが（中国語では「照片」？）、それは事実であったり、真実であったりするでしょうか。もし、写真が真実を写すのなら、「写真家」は必要ありません。写真は、その黎明期から写真家の技術とそれに伴う演出があります。空間の演出から、被写体の演出まですべて写真家が手掛けます。そして、現像・引き伸ばしにおいても技術的加工によってより顧客のニーズに合ったもの、自分が表現したいものに近づけます。もともと写真は現実や事実とは異なるのです。単純に言えば、写真は現実を100%表現ができないと同時に、現実でないものを付け加える事ができるところにその本質と魅力があるのです。きれいな風景の写真を観て現場に行ったら「写真とぜんぜん違うじゃん」と思ったことはないでしょうか。逆に現場には写真には写っていない魅力がたくさんあることも。普段「写真を取りますよ」と言われたら、なにかしかのポーズを取ってしまう人がほとんどだと思います。笑顔でも苦々しい顔でも。それは自己を演出することです。
その写真が真実を写すという思い込みの効果は絶大です。例えば、犯人と被害者の写真。犯人は「怖い」顔の写真を使い、被害者は「笑顔」の写真を使います。（それが用意できなくて、犯人の「笑った」スナップ写真を使ったりすると、非難が浴びせられます。そのため、犯人の「怖い」顔の写真が作られ、配られます。それが出来るまで、犯人の「写真」は公表されなくなったようです。ただ、動画は公表されるようですが、それも怪しいですよね。少なくとも有罪判決を受けるまでは「犯人」ではなく「容疑者」「被告」なのですから逮捕されただけで氏名や写真が公表されるのはいかがなものかと思うのですが。ゴシップ雑誌やネトウヨと同じですね。）
橋本環奈は大好きです。あの「千年に一人」の写真を見たときから。でもそれは作品としてすごいと思ったのであって、写真が彼女のすべてを描いているとは思いませんでした。女優になった彼女はいい顔もしますが、そうではない（写真には写っていない）顔もします。俳優や女優は「いい作品」に出演して「いい人」を演じれば、その俳優や女優も「いい人」だと思われて人気が出ます。今の人でもまだ理性が残っているので、「そんなことはないよね」と言えば「そうだね」という返事が返ってくることが多いのですが、会ったこともないのに「いや、絶対いい人だ」と言い張る人もいます。イメージの危機ですよね。
マルクス・ガブリエルは「芸術の場合は例外です」と言っていますが、彼が「芸術」と「非芸術」とをどう区別しているか分りません。そもそも、逆説的ですが写真や映画、テレビは識字文化の最前線です。口承文化の対極にあります。文字のない文化圏で写真や映画文化が成立しにくいのは認識能力の差ではありません。認識方法が違うのです。
言葉そのものが「現実の抽象」です。言葉で表されるのは現実の一部です。現実のすべてを言葉で言い表すことはできません。でも、対面で話を聞くときは相手の表情や話し方、身振り、話されている状況などを総合的に判断してその言葉を聞き手の経験や知識で補うことができます。しかし、それが「文字」になった途端に、それは書き手（話し手）とも時間とも場所とも切り離されて独立して存在します。そこには書き手の表情とか書かれた状況等はありません。それを推測することはできますが。写真や映画が存在するのは、現実や現在と切り離されていることによります。それは文字文化と一体なものです。
フェイク写真やフェイク動画をなくすことはできません。それが写真や動画の本質と関わっているからです。本質そのものだと言ってもいいでしょう。それで被害を受けた場合は批難すべきです。でも、本当に批判すべきは映画や動画が「事実」「現実」を表しているという幻想です。すべて「作られた（創造された）」ものなのです。その幻想は「小説はすべて真実だ（真実を著している）」というのが間違いだというのと同じです。小説だって、ゴッホの絵だって現実と全く関係がないわけではありません。でも、現実を「そのまま」描いたものではないのです。それが小説家や画家の存在理由です。
真実、事実を見たければ現場に行くしかないのです。科学の発展やグローバリズムの展開によって、わたしたちの知識や認識が広がったように思わされていますが、それは錯覚です。わたしたちの認識力は常に存在するとともに限定的なものです。わたしたちは「前」しか見ることはできません。VRで「後ろ」も同時に見ることが出来る（それは見えないものを可視化する操作ですが）かもしれませんが、それでも物の表面しか見ることができません。内部を見たいと思えば、裏返したり切り裂いたり、あるいはレントゲン写真として「内部」を「外部」にしなければならないのです。（「音」には表面とか内部とかはありません。音楽理論を勉強すればより深く音楽を楽しむことはできますし、言語学や語学を勉強すれば話の内容や外国語も理解することができますが。）
わたしたちは文字文化から逃れることはできません。ですから画像や映像からも逃れることはできません。でも知らなくてはならないことがあります。書かれたもの、画像や映像が事実をそのまま著した（顕した、表した、現した）ものではないこと。常に現実の一部でありながら創造であること。現実、事実を知るには実際に見たり聞いたり勉強をしたり（情報の豊富化）が必要だということ。それを知った上で、「ネス湖の恐竜」や「一角獣」は「存在する」（新実在論）と言うことは重要です。それは人間の思考の自由と豊かさを表現しているからです。それが、人間が（豊かに）生きる意味の（場の）基礎ですから。
追記
彼はマルクス（カール・マルクスです。彼のマルクスは名字ではありません。綴も違います。語源は同じかもしれません。）をあまり評価しないのですが、それは彼の立場から来ているもので、彼の著作にはドイツ（西洋）の哲学の歴史（ヘーゲルに代表されるドイツ観念論）とともにマルクスの叙述もたくさん反映しています。マルクスを「唯物論」というタームで理解しているようですが、それは資本論を中心とした何冊かの著作から来ているように思います。彼が考えているように、資本論は資本主義を描き出すことに成功しています。それは、資本主義と同じ立場になって、資本主義と同じ言葉で書かれているからです。でも、その記述は自己矛盾を起こします。資本主義と同じ言葉で論じれば論じるほど、資本主義の矛盾が描かれ、その存在は絶対ではなく、崩壊（「自滅」とは言えない）せずにはいかないこと、労働者（資本論のターム。うまく訳したというか、原書と異なるというか。現実社会では無産者階級（貧困階級、プロレタリアート）ということ。）の貧困は相対的にも絶対的にも増加するということが必然だということが述べられています。
「労働価値説」が正しいかどうかはいまだに議論されています。「間違っている」という人もいれば、それは「単なる仮説だ」という人もいます。自然科学では仮説を設定することによって現実をうまく説明することができれば、その仮説は存在するとみなされます。エーテルのように。そして、その仮説が否定され、その仮説に代わる説明が可能になればその仮定は捨てられます。今でも「光は波であり、粒子である」ということを知らない人が多くいて、エーテルは生きていますが（最近、エーテルが記憶や情報伝達を担っているという説を見ました。(^_^;)）。労働価値説が仮説だとしても、それによって資本主義がうまく描かれますし、最終的には資本主義社会自体が否定（ではなく弁証法的には「昇華」）されるのです。
ですから、「価値は社会主義社会（あるいはある人にとっては共産主義）にも存在するのか」という論争は無意味です。「前提が否定」されるのですから。（価値形態論はとても重要です。資本主義社会で人間の「生」はどのように扱われるか、「人間関係」はどのように現れるのかが説明されていますから。でも、それがどのような社会にも当てはまると考えることそのものが資本主義的思考です。）
宝くじに「当たる」とかベンチャー企業が「儲ける」とはどういう意味でしょうか。宝くじで7億円儲けるのは、大多数の宝くじ購入者が「少しづつ」損をしているからです（かならず儲かる胴元、「〇〇銀行」は存在します）。ベンチャー企業も同じです。ベンチャー企業が儲けるためには損をする人がかならずいるのです。「無」から「有」は発生しないからです。労働価値説は無から有が発生するという仮説です。価値は労働力とそれを使用することによって発生します。今生きている人の「生」そのものから発生するのです。でも、それだけではありません。労働は既存の価値、つまり過去の人の「生」も保存するのです。本来はそれは公＜共＞財（Common wealth）となるものです。労働は、それに価値を付け加えます。その価値は本当に「無」から生まれたものでしょうか。それは人間が「生きる」というのはどういうものかにも関わっているのですが、それを資本主義的（経済学的）には「価値を生み出す」としか表現できない（数量化できない、貨幣に換算できない）のです。
（欲望を数値化した「需要供給曲線」などが資本主義社会を説明するのに無意味なのは明らかです。需要、欲望は「作られる」のですから。それは資本主義社会を説明していません。「市場」を説明する仮説とはなりますが、近現代の市場が資本主義的だとしても、それらは次元が異なるのです。）
労働力それ自身以外の生産力向上要因についても資本論には書かれています。例えば協業などです。しかし、マルクスはそれと価値を生み出す労働とは明確に区別しています。協業や有機的構成の変化（オートメーション化など）が価値を生み出すわけではありません。実際に「労働者のいない工場（会社）」は資本家の理想ですが（金融資本はそれに近いです）、そんな工場（会社）は「永久機関」と同じくありえません。もし、労働価値説を否定したいのなら、そういう会社（そういう会社だけで構成される社会）が作れることを証明しなければならないのです。
外部との関係が利益を生むという重商主義的考察も無意味です。前述のように、外部は関係を持とうとすれば内部化しなければなりません（この場合内部と外部は逆ですが）。そういう意識があろうとなかろうとです。外部と内部との境界（限界）は考え方によって変わります。「自分」を考えても自分の境界はどこなのか、自分の体は内部なのか外部なのか、パソコンは、家は、地域社会は、国は、地球全体は・・・。
資本が、外部を作ってそこから利益を得てるという風に見えるかもしれませんが、そこに市場を作ったり、工場を作ったりすることで、それは内部になります。しかし、それを隠すために国境を作ったり、その内部に人種差別や性差別を作ったりしながら、共同体を壊し敵対心を煽ります。市場や工場を作りながらそれに対抗する事物を作る。そして、それは軍備と戦争という強制消費（強制需要）の基礎になります。
西洋論理は人間の「言葉を持つ」という本質と深い関係があることは前に述べたとおりです。それが文字や写真、映像になると客観的に自立（客体化）します。客体化は支配の必要条件です。そして、それに「非人間化」という化粧を施すことで支配が成立します。心と体、人間と自然、主人と奴隷、資本と労働者、領主国と被植民地、ゲルマン人とユダヤ人、自国民と他国民、部族（共同体）の内と外、自分に同調してくれる人と自分と違う考えの人・・・後者を支配し、そのために戦う（殺す、壊す）には後者の非人間化が必要です。資本に外部はありません。外部を取り込み、内部にしながら内部に分断と非人間化を常に作り出していきます。それまで「区別」だったものを「差別」にしていくのです。部分的には、外部を利潤の源泉と考えることは可能です。持株会社だけを内部と考えれば、外部（あるいは株を持つこと自体）が利潤の源泉ということもできます。土地所有が外部から（あるいはそれ自体から）利潤を得ているという見方もできるでしょう。でもそれは資本（資本主義社会全体）を説明したことにはならないのは明らかです。資本の内部での利潤発生を説明するのに外部を持ってくるのはルール違反です。（笑）
「非人間化」や「客体化」は数値化できません。協業や共同体もそれ自体を数値化することはできません。それは資本主義的な論理ではないのです（その結果は数値化できます）。それは、資本主義にとっては「メタ論理」です。それを資本は数値化し、内在化しようとしますが、それが資本主義社会の「本当の外部」を作り出します。
最近の経済学は数学がわからないと分りません。私は数学が苦手です。でも、今の経済学は数式でそれらしく見えてもその前提も、根拠も恣意的です。だから、まともに現在の社会を描けないのです。それは無から無を作っているだけです。あるいは良く言えば有から有を「操作して」「変換して」いるだけです。それはではいつまで経っても「資本」を説明することはできません。資本は「あたかも」無から有を生み出す如くに利潤を産まなければならないからです。そしてその利潤は「偶然性」に支配されているのです。あるいは「見えざる手」に支配されていると言ってもいい。それは同じことです。「見えない」からです。見えないときにはすべてが「偶然」で且つ「必然」だからです。どちらにも考えられるのです。「見えざる手」と言ったアダム・スミスは労働価値説にその根拠を持っていました。ところが、現代経済学には労働価値説以外に根拠と呼べるものを見つけていません。しかし、マルクスのような根拠付けをすることはできません（もし分かっていてもできない）。それは資本主義の崩壊を決定づけるものだからです。
今年のノーベル経済学賞が発表になりました。ミルグロムとウィルソンの「オークション理論」です。詳しいことは私には分りませんが、有から有への再分配理論のようです。無から利益を得るのでなければ、誰かが儲ければ、誰かが損をするだけです。一個人（あるいは一企業、一自治体）が儲けるかどうかはどうでもいいのです。再配分は民主的に平等に行わなければならないし、社会全体の富の増加こそが経済学が取り組む問題だと私は思います。個人（企業）から個人（企業）への富の移動、外部から内部への富の移動をいくら理論化しても人類のためにはならないと思うのですが。
⟨impressions⟩
It is not specified when the interview will be held. That alone makes me feel distrustful of this book.
I've read some of Gabriel's writings, but I often don't understand them. Of course that is my lack of study. This book is also easy to understand, but it is full of contradictory content. There are some places where I think that the translator attracted me to translate this, so I would like you to publish the original text (English).
For example, Gabriel says "Trump is right", which is "correct because Trump is speaking according to American society (the system of pursuing profits)" and "the person named Trump is right". It can be inferred that this is not the case, but if you do not read it properly, you will misread it as "I support Trump (neoliberalism)." If he thinks so, I think it's nothing more than acknowledging the existence of "Trump" and "neoliberalism" as a "fact." That is the basis of the "new realism". "Fact-finding" and "value (good and bad, right and wrong) judgment" are different things.
If you read this book with that as a premise, you will get a lot of things.
In Chapter VII "Crisis of Representation", the words "wrong idea" that "the normativeness of representation is in representation" and "the image has no internal attributes such as good or bad in nature" , It will be a reference when thinking about the current "deep fake". However, that alone cannot reach the root of "deepfake."
In Japanese, a photograph is written as "copying" "true" (in Chinese, "lighting piece"?), But is that true or true? If the photo captures the truth, you don't need a "photographer". Since the dawn of photography, photography has the skills of photographers and the accompanying effects. The photographer handles everything from the production of the space to the production of the subject. Also, in development and enlargement, we will make it closer to what you want to express, which is more suitable for customer needs by technical processing. Originally, photography is different from reality and facts. Simply put, photography has its essence and appeal in that it cannot express reality 100%, and at the same time it can add something that is not reality. Have you ever seen a photo of a beautiful landscape and thought, "It's completely different from the photo" when you go to the site? On the contrary, there are many charms that are not shown in the photos. I think most people will take some pose when they are usually told to take a picture. Whether it's a smile or a bitter face. It's about directing yourself.
The effect of the belief that the photo reflects the truth is enormous. For example, photos of the criminal and the victim. The criminal uses a "scary" face photo and the victim uses a "smile" photo. (If you can't prepare it and use a "laughing" snapshot of the criminal, you'll be criticized. Therefore, a photo of the criminal's "scary" face will be made and distributed until it's done. It seems that the criminal's "photo" is no longer published. However, the video seems to be published, but that is also suspicious. At least until convicted, it is not a "criminal" but a "suspect" "defendant" So I think it's a good idea to publish your name and photo just because you were arrested. It's the same as gossip magazines and Netouyo.)
I love Kanna Hashimoto. From the time I saw that "one in a thousand years" photo. But I thought it was great as a work, and I didn't think the photographs portrayed all of her. As an actress, she has a nice face, but she doesn't (not shown in the photo). If an actor or actress appears in a "good work" and plays a "good person", the actor or actress is also considered to be a "good person" and becomes popular. Even today's people still have reason, so when I say "that's not the case", I often get a reply saying "yes", but even though I have never met, "no, absolutely Some people insist that they are good people. " It's an image crisis, isn't it?
Markus Gabriel says "the exception is in the case of art," but I don't know how he distinguishes between "art" and "non-art." In the first place, paradoxically, photography, movies and television are at the forefront of literacy culture. It is the opposite of oral culture. It is not the difference in cognitive ability that it is difficult to establish photography and film culture in a cultural area without letters. The recognition method is different.
The word itself is the "abstraction of reality." What is expressed in words is a part of reality. Not all of reality can be expressed in words. However, when listening face-to-face, you can comprehensively judge the other person's facial expressions, speaking style, gestures, and the situation in which they are being spoken, and supplement the words with the experience and knowledge of the listener. However, as soon as it becomes a "letter", it exists independently of the writer (speaker), time and place. There is no facial expression of the writer or the situation in which it was written. I can guess that. The existence of photographs and movies is due to their separation from reality and the present. It is an integral part of the character culture.
You can't get rid of fake photos and fake videos. Because it has something to do with the essence of photography and video. It can be said that it is the essence itself. If it causes damage, you should criticize it. But what really should be criticized is the illusion that movies and videos represent "facts" and "reality." Everything is "made (created)". The illusion is the same as saying that "all novels are true (writing the truth)" is a mistake. Even novels and Van Gogh's paintings are not completely unrelated to reality. However, it is not a "as is" drawing of reality. That is the reason for the existence of novelists and painters.
If you want to see the truth and facts, you have no choice but to go to the scene. It seems that the development of science and the development of globalism have expanded our knowledge and awareness, but that is an illusion. Our cognitive power is always present and limited. We can only see "before". You may be able to see "behind" in VR at the same time (though it is an operation to visualize what you cannot see), but you can still see only the surface of things. If you want to see the inside, you have to turn it over, tear it up, or turn "inside" into "outside" as an X-ray. ("Sound" has no surface or interior. If you study music theory, you can enjoy music more deeply, and if you study linguistics and languages, you can understand the content of the story and foreign languages. But.)
We cannot escape from the character culture. Therefore, you cannot escape from images and videos. But there are some things you need to know. Written, images and videos are not the exact facts (revealed, represented, revealed). Being creative while always being part of reality. In order to know the reality and facts, it is necessary to actually see, hear, and study (enrichment of information). Knowing that, it is important to say that "Loch Ness dinosaurs" and "unicorns" "exist" (new realism). It expresses the freedom and abundance of human thinking. That is the (place) basis of the meaning of human beings living (richly).
Postscript
He doesn't really appreciate Marx (Karl Marx. His Marx is not his last name. He has a different spelling. The etymology may be the same), but it comes from his point of view. His writings reflect many of Marx's narratives as well as the history of German (Western) philosophy (German idealism represented by Hegel). It seems that Marx is understood by the term "materialism", but I think it comes from several books centered on capitalism. As he thinks, capitalism has succeeded in portraying capitalism. Because it is in the same position as capitalism and is written in the same language as capitalism. But that description is self-contradictory. The more we argue in the same language as capitalism, the more the contradiction of capitalism is drawn, its existence is not absolute and it cannot be helped to collapse (it cannot be said to be "self-destruction"), workers (of capitalism). Term. Translated well, or different from the original. In the real world, it is inevitable that the poverty of the non-productive class (poor class, proletariat) will increase relatively and absolutely. Is stated.
Whether the "labor theory of value" is correct is still under debate. Some say it's "wrong," while others say it's just a hypothesis. In the natural sciences, if you can explain reality well by setting a hypothesis, that hypothesis is considered to exist. Like ether. Then, if the hypothesis is denied and an alternative explanation is possible, the hypothesis is discarded. Many people still do not know that "light is a wave and a particle", and ether is alive (I recently saw the theory that ether is responsible for memory and information transmission). ^ _ ^;))). Even if the labor theory of value is a hypothesis, it portrays capitalism well, and ultimately the capitalist society itself is denied (or dialectically "sublimated").
So the debate "Does value also exist in socialist society (or communism for some)" is meaningless. Because the premise is denied. (Value morphology is very important because it explains how human "life" is treated in a capitalist society and how "human relations" appear, but what it is. Thinking that it also applies to society is capitalist thinking.)
What does it mean to "win" the lottery or "make money" for a venture company? The reason why you can make 700 million yen in a lottery is that the majority of lottery buyers are losing "little by little" (there is always a profitable body, "○○ Bank"). The same is true for venture companies. In order for a venture company to make a profit, there are always people who lose money. This is because "nothing" does not change to "yes". The labor theory of value is the hypothesis that something comes from nothing. Value is generated by the workforce and its use. It arises from the "life" of the person who is alive now. But that's not all. Labor also preserves existing value, the "life" of past people. Originally, it is a common wealth. Labor adds value to it. Is its value really born of "nothing"? It has something to do with what human beings "live", but it can only be expressed capitalistly (economically) as "creating value" (cannot be quantified, converted into money). I can't).
(It is clear that a "supply and demand curve" that quantifies desires is meaningless to explain a capitalist society, because demands and desires are "made". It does not explain a capitalist society. It's a hypothesis to explain "markets", but even if modern markets are capitalist, they are in different dimensions.)
The theory of capital also describes factors that improve productivity other than the labor force itself. For example, collaboration. But Marx makes a clear distinction between it and value-creating labor. Collaboration and changes in organic composition (such as automation) do not create value. In fact, a "workerless factory (company)" is ideal for a capitalist (financial capital is close to that), but such a factory (company) cannot be the same as a "perpetual motion". If you want to deny the labor theory of value, you have to prove that you can create such a company (a society consisting only of such companies).
The mercantilist view that relationships with the outside world make a profit is also meaningless. As mentioned earlier, the outside must be internalized if it wants to have a relationship (in this case the inside and the outside are the opposite). With or without that kind of consciousness. The boundary (limit) between the outside and the inside changes depending on the way of thinking. Even if you think about yourself, where are your boundaries, whether your body is inside or outside, your computer, your home, your community, your country, your entire planet ...
It may seem that capital creates the outside and profits from it, but by creating a market or a factory there, it becomes the inside. However, it destroys the community and incites hostility, creating borders to hide it and creating racism and sexism within it. Create a market or factory and create something to counter it. And it is the basis of forced consumption (forced demand) of armament and war.
As mentioned earlier, Western logic is closely related to the essence of human beings having words. When it becomes text, photographs, and images, it becomes objectively independent (objectified). Objectification is a prerequisite for control. Then, by applying a make-up called "dehumanization" to it, control is established. Mind and body, humans and nature, masters and slaves, capital and workers, territories and colonies, Germanic and Jews, own and other peoples, inside and outside the tribe (community), in sync with oneself The person who gives me and the person who thinks differently from me ... It is necessary to dehumanize the latter in order to control the latter and fight (kill, destroy) for it. There is no outside in capital. We take in the outside and constantly create division and dehumanization inside while keeping it inside. What used to be "discrimination" will be changed to "discrimination". In part, it is possible to think of the outside as a source of profit. If you consider only the holding company as the inside, you can say that the outside (or owning the stock itself) is the source of profit. One could argue that land ownership is profitable from the outside (or from itself). But it is clear that it does not explain capital (the entire capitalist society). It is a violation of the rules to bring the outside to explain the profit generation inside the capital. (Lol)
"Dehumanization" and "objectification" cannot be quantified. Collaborations and communities cannot quantify themselves. It's not capitalist logic (the results can be quantified). It is "metalogic" for capitalism. Capital quantifies it and tries to internalize it, which creates the "real outside" of capitalist society.
Modern economics cannot be understood without understanding mathematics. I'm not good at math. However, even if economics now looks like a mathematical formula, its premise and grounds are arbitrary. Therefore, it is not possible to depict the present society properly. It's just making nothing out of nothing. Or, to put it better, it just "manipulates" and "converts" from Yu to Yu. It cannot explain "capital" forever. This is because capital must generate profits as if it were "as if" nothing were produced. And that profit is dominated by "accidentality". Or it can be said that it is dominated by the "invisible hand." It's the same. Because it is "invisible". When you can't see it, everything is "accidental" and "inevitable." Both can be considered. Adam Smith, who said the "invisible hand," had its basis in the labor theory of value. However, in modern economics, we have not found anything that can be called a basis other than the labor theory of value. But you can't justify it like Marx (if you know it, you can't). Because it determines the collapse of capitalism.
This year's Nobel Prize in Economics has been announced. Milgrom and Wilson's "Auction Theory". I don't know the details, but it seems to be the redistribution theory from existence to existence. Unless you profit from nothing, if someone makes a profit, someone just loses. It doesn't matter if one individual (or one company, one municipality) makes a profit. Redistribution must be done democratically and equally, and I think that increasing the wealth of society as a whole is the problem that economics addresses. I don't think that no matter how much the theory of the transfer of wealth from an individual (company) to an individual (company) and the transfer of wealth from the outside to the inside is good for humankind.
It is not specified when the interview will be held. That alone makes me feel distrustful of this book.
I've read some of Gabriel's writings, but I often don't understand them. Of course that is my lack of study. This book is also easy to understand, but it is full of contradictory content. There are some places where I think that the translator attracted me to translate this, so I would like you to publish the original text (English).
For example, Gabriel says "Trump is right", which is "correct because Trump is speaking according to American society (the system of pursuing profits)" and "the person named Trump is right". It can be inferred that this is not the case, but if you do not read it properly, you will misread it as "I support Trump (neoliberalism)." If he thinks so, I think it's nothing more than acknowledging the existence of "Trump" and "neoliberalism" as a "fact." That is the basis of the "new realism". "Fact-finding" and "value (good and bad, right and wrong) judgment" are different things.
If you read this book with that as a premise, you will get a lot of things.
In Chapter VII "Crisis of Representation", the words "wrong idea" that "the normativeness of representation is in representation" and "the image has no internal attributes such as good or bad in nature" , It will be a reference when thinking about the current "deep fake". However, that alone cannot reach the root of "deepfake."
In Japanese, a photograph is written as "copying" "true" (in Chinese, "lighting piece"?), But is that true or true? If the photo captures the truth, you don't need a "photographer". Since the dawn of photography, photography has the skills of photographers and the accompanying effects. The photographer handles everything from the production of the space to the production of the subject. Also, in development and enlargement, we will make it closer to what you want to express, which is more suitable for customer needs by technical processing. Originally, photography is different from reality and facts. Simply put, photography has its essence and appeal in that it cannot express reality 100%, and at the same time it can add something that is not reality. Have you ever seen a photo of a beautiful landscape and thought, "It's completely different from the photo" when you go to the site? On the contrary, there are many charms that are not shown in the photos. I think most people will take some pose when they are usually told to take a picture. Whether it's a smile or a bitter face. It's about directing yourself.
The effect of the belief that the photo reflects the truth is enormous. For example, photos of the criminal and the victim. The criminal uses a "scary" face photo and the victim uses a "smile" photo. (If you can't prepare it and use a "laughing" snapshot of the criminal, you'll be criticized. Therefore, a photo of the criminal's "scary" face will be made and distributed until it's done. It seems that the criminal's "photo" is no longer published. However, the video seems to be published, but that is also suspicious. At least until convicted, it is not a "criminal" but a "suspect" "defendant" So I think it's a good idea to publish your name and photo just because you were arrested. It's the same as gossip magazines and Netouyo.)
I love Kanna Hashimoto. From the time I saw that "one in a thousand years" photo. But I thought it was great as a work, and I didn't think the photographs portrayed all of her. As an actress, she has a nice face, but she doesn't (not shown in the photo). If an actor or actress appears in a "good work" and plays a "good person", the actor or actress is also considered to be a "good person" and becomes popular. Even today's people still have reason, so when I say "that's not the case", I often get a reply saying "yes", but even though I have never met, "no, absolutely Some people insist that they are good people. " It's an image crisis, isn't it?
Markus Gabriel says "the exception is in the case of art," but I don't know how he distinguishes between "art" and "non-art." In the first place, paradoxically, photography, movies and television are at the forefront of literacy culture. It is the opposite of oral culture. It is not the difference in cognitive ability that it is difficult to establish photography and film culture in a cultural area without letters. The recognition method is different.
The word itself is the "abstraction of reality." What is expressed in words is a part of reality. Not all of reality can be expressed in words. However, when listening face-to-face, you can comprehensively judge the other person's facial expressions, speaking style, gestures, and the situation in which they are being spoken, and supplement the words with the experience and knowledge of the listener. However, as soon as it becomes a "letter", it exists independently of the writer (speaker), time and place. There is no facial expression of the writer or the situation in which it was written. I can guess that. The existence of photographs and movies is due to their separation from reality and the present. It is an integral part of the character culture.
You can't get rid of fake photos and fake videos. Because it has something to do with the essence of photography and video. It can be said that it is the essence itself. If it causes damage, you should criticize it. But what really should be criticized is the illusion that movies and videos represent "facts" and "reality." Everything is "made (created)". The illusion is the same as saying that "all novels are true (writing the truth)" is a mistake. Even novels and Van Gogh's paintings are not completely unrelated to reality. However, it is not a "as is" drawing of reality. That is the reason for the existence of novelists and painters.
If you want to see the truth and facts, you have no choice but to go to the scene. It seems that the development of science and the development of globalism have expanded our knowledge and awareness, but that is an illusion. Our cognitive power is always present and limited. We can only see "before". You may be able to see "behind" in VR at the same time (though it is an operation to visualize what you cannot see), but you can still see only the surface of things. If you want to see the inside, you have to turn it over, tear it up, or turn "inside" into "outside" as an X-ray. ("Sound" has no surface or interior. If you study music theory, you can enjoy music more deeply, and if you study linguistics and languages, you can understand the content of the story and foreign languages. But.)
We cannot escape from the character culture. Therefore, you cannot escape from images and videos. But there are some things you need to know. Written, images and videos are not the exact facts (revealed, represented, revealed). Being creative while always being part of reality. In order to know the reality and facts, it is necessary to actually see, hear, and study (enrichment of information). Knowing that, it is important to say that "Loch Ness dinosaurs" and "unicorns" "exist" (new realism). It expresses the freedom and abundance of human thinking. That is the (place) basis of the meaning of human beings living (richly).
Postscript
He doesn't really appreciate Marx (Karl Marx. His Marx is not his last name. He has a different spelling. The etymology may be the same), but it comes from his point of view. His writings reflect many of Marx's narratives as well as the history of German (Western) philosophy (German idealism represented by Hegel). It seems that Marx is understood by the term "materialism", but I think it comes from several books centered on capitalism. As he thinks, capitalism has succeeded in portraying capitalism. Because it is in the same position as capitalism and is written in the same language as capitalism. But that description is self-contradictory. The more we argue in the same language as capitalism, the more the contradiction of capitalism is drawn, its existence is not absolute and it cannot be helped to collapse (it cannot be said to be "self-destruction"), workers (of capitalism). Term. Translated well, or different from the original. In the real world, it is inevitable that the poverty of the non-productive class (poor class, proletariat) will increase relatively and absolutely. Is stated.
Whether the "labor theory of value" is correct is still under debate. Some say it's "wrong," while others say it's just a hypothesis. In the natural sciences, if you can explain reality well by setting a hypothesis, that hypothesis is considered to exist. Like ether. Then, if the hypothesis is denied and an alternative explanation is possible, the hypothesis is discarded. Many people still do not know that "light is a wave and a particle", and ether is alive (I recently saw the theory that ether is responsible for memory and information transmission). ^ _ ^;))). Even if the labor theory of value is a hypothesis, it portrays capitalism well, and ultimately the capitalist society itself is denied (or dialectically "sublimated").
So the debate "Does value also exist in socialist society (or communism for some)" is meaningless. Because the premise is denied. (Value morphology is very important because it explains how human "life" is treated in a capitalist society and how "human relations" appear, but what it is. Thinking that it also applies to society is capitalist thinking.)
What does it mean to "win" the lottery or "make money" for a venture company? The reason why you can make 700 million yen in a lottery is that the majority of lottery buyers are losing "little by little" (there is always a profitable body, "○○ Bank"). The same is true for venture companies. In order for a venture company to make a profit, there are always people who lose money. This is because "nothing" does not change to "yes". The labor theory of value is the hypothesis that something comes from nothing. Value is generated by the workforce and its use. It arises from the "life" of the person who is alive now. But that's not all. Labor also preserves existing value, the "life" of past people. Originally, it is a common wealth. Labor adds value to it. Is its value really born of "nothing"? It has something to do with what human beings "live", but it can only be expressed capitalistly (economically) as "creating value" (cannot be quantified, converted into money). I can't).
(It is clear that a "supply and demand curve" that quantifies desires is meaningless to explain a capitalist society, because demands and desires are "made". It does not explain a capitalist society. It's a hypothesis to explain "markets", but even if modern markets are capitalist, they are in different dimensions.)
The theory of capital also describes factors that improve productivity other than the labor force itself. For example, collaboration. But Marx makes a clear distinction between it and value-creating labor. Collaboration and changes in organic composition (such as automation) do not create value. In fact, a "workerless factory (company)" is ideal for a capitalist (financial capital is close to that), but such a factory (company) cannot be the same as a "perpetual motion". If you want to deny the labor theory of value, you have to prove that you can create such a company (a society consisting only of such companies).
The mercantilist view that relationships with the outside world make a profit is also meaningless. As mentioned earlier, the outside must be internalized if it wants to have a relationship (in this case the inside and the outside are the opposite). With or without that kind of consciousness. The boundary (limit) between the outside and the inside changes depending on the way of thinking. Even if you think about yourself, where are your boundaries, whether your body is inside or outside, your computer, your home, your community, your country, your entire planet ...
It may seem that capital creates the outside and profits from it, but by creating a market or a factory there, it becomes the inside. However, it destroys the community and incites hostility, creating borders to hide it and creating racism and sexism within it. Create a market or factory and create something to counter it. And it is the basis of forced consumption (forced demand) of armament and war.
As mentioned earlier, Western logic is closely related to the essence of human beings having words. When it becomes text, photographs, and images, it becomes objectively independent (objectified). Objectification is a prerequisite for control. Then, by applying a make-up called "dehumanization" to it, control is established. Mind and body, humans and nature, masters and slaves, capital and workers, territories and colonies, Germanic and Jews, own and other peoples, inside and outside the tribe (community), in sync with oneself The person who gives me and the person who thinks differently from me ... It is necessary to dehumanize the latter in order to control the latter and fight (kill, destroy) for it. There is no outside in capital. We take in the outside and constantly create division and dehumanization inside while keeping it inside. What used to be "discrimination" will be changed to "discrimination". In part, it is possible to think of the outside as a source of profit. If you consider only the holding company as the inside, you can say that the outside (or owning the stock itself) is the source of profit. One could argue that land ownership is profitable from the outside (or from itself). But it is clear that it does not explain capital (the entire capitalist society). It is a violation of the rules to bring the outside to explain the profit generation inside the capital. (Lol)
"Dehumanization" and "objectification" cannot be quantified. Collaborations and communities cannot quantify themselves. It's not capitalist logic (the results can be quantified). It is "metalogic" for capitalism. Capital quantifies it and tries to internalize it, which creates the "real outside" of capitalist society.
Modern economics cannot be understood without understanding mathematics. I'm not good at math. However, even if economics now looks like a mathematical formula, its premise and grounds are arbitrary. Therefore, it is not possible to depict the present society properly. It's just making nothing out of nothing. Or, to put it better, it just "manipulates" and "converts" from Yu to Yu. It cannot explain "capital" forever. This is because capital must generate profits as if it were "as if" nothing were produced. And that profit is dominated by "accidentality". Or it can be said that it is dominated by the "invisible hand." It's the same. Because it is "invisible". When you can't see it, everything is "accidental" and "inevitable." Both can be considered. Adam Smith, who said the "invisible hand," had its basis in the labor theory of value. However, in modern economics, we have not found anything that can be called a basis other than the labor theory of value. But you can't justify it like Marx (if you know it, you can't). Because it determines the collapse of capitalism.
This year's Nobel Prize in Economics has been announced. Milgrom and Wilson's "Auction Theory". I don't know the details, but it seems to be the redistribution theory from existence to existence. Unless you profit from nothing, if someone makes a profit, someone just loses. It doesn't matter if one individual (or one company, one municipality) makes a profit. Redistribution must be done democratically and equally, and I think that increasing the wealth of society as a whole is the problem that economics addresses. I don't think that no matter how much the theory of the transfer of wealth from an individual (company) to an individual (company) and the transfer of wealth from the outside to the inside is good for humankind.
[出演者(プロフィール)]
ガブリエル,マルクス
1980年生まれ。史上最年少の29歳で、200年以上の伝統を誇るボン大学の正教授に抜擢される。西洋哲学の伝統に根ざしつつ、「新しい実在論」を提唱して世界的に注目される
大野/和基
1955年、兵庫県生まれ。大阪府立北野高校、東京外国語大学英米学科卒業。79~97年渡米。コーネル大学で化学、ニューヨーク医科大学で基礎医学を学ぶ。その後、現地でジャーナリストとしての活動を開始、国際情勢の裏側、医療問題から経済まで幅広い分野の取材・執筆を行う。97年に帰国後も取材のため、頻繁に渡航。アメリカの最新事情に精通している
【発売前に大増刷決定!日本の読者のために完全に語り下ろした、唯一のガブリエル本】
「新しい哲学の旗手」「天才哲学者」と称され、世界中から注目を集めているマルクス・ガブリエル。
200年以上の歴史を誇るドイツ・ボン大学の哲学科・正教授に史上最年少で抜擢された、気鋭の哲学者だ。
彼が提唱する「新しい実在論」は、「ポスト真実」の言葉が広がり、ポピュリズムの嵐が吹き荒れる現代において、「真実だけが存在する」ことを示す、画期的な論考とされる。
本書は、今世界に起こりつつある「5つの危機」を取り上げる。
価値の危機、民主主義の危機、資本主義の危機、テクノロジーの危機、そして表象の危機……激変する世界に起きつつある5つの危機とは?
そして、時計の針が巻き戻り始めた世界、「古き良き19世紀に戻ってきている」世界を、「新しい実在論」はどう読み解き、どのような解決策を導き出すのか。
さらに、2章と補講では「新しい実在論」についての、ガブリエル本人による詳細な解説を収録。
特に補講では、ガブリエルが「私の研究の最も深部にある」と述べる論理哲学の核心を図解し、なぜ「世界は存在しない」のか、そしてなぜ「真実だけが存在する」のかに関する鮮やかな論理が展開される。
若き知性が日本の読者のために語り下ろした、スリリングな対話と提言を堪能できる1冊。
第1章 世界史の針が巻き戻るとき
第2章 なぜ今、新しい実在論なのか
第3章 価値の危機――非人間化、普遍の価値、ニヒリズム
第4章 民主主義の危機――コモンセンス、文化的多元性、多様性のパラドックス
第5章 資本主義の危機――コ・イミュニズム、自己グローバル化、モラル企業
第6章 テクノロジーの危機――「人工的な」知能、GAFAへの対抗策、優しい独裁国家日本
第7章 表象の危機――ファクト、フェイクニュース、アメリカの病
補講 新しい実在論が我々にもたらすもの
「新しい哲学の旗手」「天才哲学者」と称され、世界中から注目を集めているマルクス・ガブリエル。
200年以上の歴史を誇るドイツ・ボン大学の哲学科・正教授に史上最年少で抜擢された、気鋭の哲学者だ。
彼が提唱する「新しい実在論」は、「ポスト真実」の言葉が広がり、ポピュリズムの嵐が吹き荒れる現代において、「真実だけが存在する」ことを示す、画期的な論考とされる。
本書は、今世界に起こりつつある「5つの危機」を取り上げる。
価値の危機、民主主義の危機、資本主義の危機、テクノロジーの危機、そして表象の危機……激変する世界に起きつつある5つの危機とは?
そして、時計の針が巻き戻り始めた世界、「古き良き19世紀に戻ってきている」世界を、「新しい実在論」はどう読み解き、どのような解決策を導き出すのか。
さらに、2章と補講では「新しい実在論」についての、ガブリエル本人による詳細な解説を収録。
特に補講では、ガブリエルが「私の研究の最も深部にある」と述べる論理哲学の核心を図解し、なぜ「世界は存在しない」のか、そしてなぜ「真実だけが存在する」のかに関する鮮やかな論理が展開される。
若き知性が日本の読者のために語り下ろした、スリリングな対話と提言を堪能できる1冊。
第1章 世界史の針が巻き戻るとき
第2章 なぜ今、新しい実在論なのか
第3章 価値の危機――非人間化、普遍の価値、ニヒリズム
第4章 民主主義の危機――コモンセンス、文化的多元性、多様性のパラドックス
第5章 資本主義の危機――コ・イミュニズム、自己グローバル化、モラル企業
第6章 テクノロジーの危機――「人工的な」知能、GAFAへの対抗策、優しい独裁国家日本
第7章 表象の危機――ファクト、フェイクニュース、アメリカの病
補講 新しい実在論が我々にもたらすもの
[拡大] 
[拡大] [ISBN-13 : 978-4569845944]
