While reading this, I have come across very few moments when I want to argue face to face with the author. This is unusual in theory. One of the reasons I like reading theory is that is agitates my intellectual hackles. I am not finding this dynamic while this reading. Do other folks feel the same way? I am finding an easy and pleasant melding of Agamben’s ideas with my own. But I always do have questions and here are a few to consider for our chat on Thursday at 8 pm Chicago time.
1. Agamben is a professor of aesthetics. While this writing seems clear from the point of view of legal philosophy or politics, does it take on a different meaning when considered from the point of view of aesthetics?
2. Has anyone ever seen the Hebrew letter Aleph used as a footnote before? Also, as there are other letters in the Hebrew alphabet, why always Aleph?
3. Agamben’s thesis on the slide into an easy (and I suspect we are reading our way into a theory of a constant) state of exception since WWI seems remarkably obvious. Is this perspective simply obvious once state?
4. Being outside of law and legal theory, I like the precise textual and historical format of the book. For those who know the subject, is it overly simple?
I hope these questions are helpful. Feel free to post questions or bring your own the conversation.
Talk to you soon.