{"id":23778,"date":"2024-08-26T17:15:51","date_gmt":"2024-08-26T15:15:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/?p=23778"},"modified":"2024-08-26T19:48:23","modified_gmt":"2024-08-26T17:48:23","slug":"lexome-deshiren-seksi-dhe-euthanazia-e-arsyes-iv","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/lexome-deshiren-seksi-dhe-euthanazia-e-arsyes-iv\/","title":{"rendered":"Lexom\u00eb d\u00ebshir\u00ebn: Seksi dhe euthanazia e arsyes (IV)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Lexom\u00eb d\u00ebshir\u00ebn: Seksi dhe euthanazia e arsyes (IV) \n<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

07.08.2024 | Nga Joan Copjec | P\u00ebrkthimi: Genc Shehu | nyje.al\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>

Ana mashkullore: D\u00ebshtimi dinamik<\/b><\/span><\/p>

N\u00ebse do t\u00eb luanim sipas rregullave t\u00eb historicizmit, do t\u00eb duhej t\u00eb argumentonim se, si gruaja, as burri nuk ekziston, q\u00eb asnj\u00eb kategori e p\u00ebrgjithshme e burrit nuk z\u00eb vend n\u00eb shum\u00ebllojshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e pozicioneve subjektive mashkullore q\u00eb \u00e7do epok\u00eb nd\u00ebrton. K\u00ebshtu, nj\u00eb argument nominalist, si nj\u00ebfar\u00eb tret\u00ebsi teorik, aktualisht ia del t\u00eb tres\u00eb kategorit\u00eb e burrit dhe gruas nj\u00ebsoj. Megjithat\u00eb, sipas Lacanit <\/span>nuk mund<\/span><\/i> t\u00eb argumentojm\u00eb simetrikisht se burri nuk ekziston. Ne kemi, n\u00ebse duhet besuar ana e majt\u00eb e tabel\u00ebs s\u00eb seksuimit, asnj\u00eb problem n\u00eb gjetjen e tij, n\u00eb shpalljen e ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Kjo deklarat\u00eb mund t\u00eb vij\u00eb si befasi \u2013 dhe jo vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr historicist\u00ebt. Sepse diskutimi yn\u00eb na ka \u00e7uar t\u00eb supozojm\u00eb se rregulli i arsyes, q\u00eb na shtyn t\u00eb k\u00ebrkojm\u00eb nj\u00eb totalitet kushtesh, duhet p\u00ebrgjithmon\u00eb t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb t\u00eb pamundur \u00e7do gjykim ekzistence. Prandaj gjendemi t\u00eb pap\u00ebrgatitur p\u00ebr ta yshtur e larguar k\u00ebt\u00eb pamund\u00ebsi, e cila duket se n\u00ebnkuptohet nga konfirmimi i ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb burrit. Nj\u00eb befasi e ngjashme shprehet rregullisht nga komentator\u00ebt e Kantit, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt habiten nga leht\u00ebsia e papritur me t\u00eb cil\u00ebn gjendet nj\u00eb zgjidhje p\u00ebr antinomit\u00eb dinamike. Nd\u00ebrsa teza dhe antiteza e antinomive matematikore konsideroheshin t\u00eb dyja t\u00eb pav\u00ebrteta sepse t\u00eb dyja pohonin n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb jo-legjitime ekzistenc\u00ebn e bot\u00ebs (ose t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebs s\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebr\u00eb), teza dhe antiteza e antinomive dinamike konsiderohen nga Kanti si t\u00eb v\u00ebrteta. N\u00eb rastin e par\u00eb, konflikti midis dy propozimeve mendohej t\u00eb ishte i pazgjidhsh\u00ebm (pasi b\u00ebnin pohime kontradiktore p\u00ebr t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin objekt); n\u00eb rastin e dyt\u00eb, konflikti zgjidhet \u201cmrekullisht\u201d nga pohimi se dy deklaratat nuk bien n\u00eb kontradikt\u00eb me nj\u00ebra-tjetr\u00ebn. N\u00ebse do t\u00eb ishte thjesht \u00e7\u00ebshtje e tez\u00ebs, nuk do t\u00eb kishim v\u00ebshtir\u00ebsi t\u00eb pranonim k\u00ebt\u00eb argument: teza \u201cShkak\u00ebsia sipas ligjeve t\u00eb natyr\u00ebs nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb e vetmja shkak\u00ebsi q\u00eb vepron si burim i fenomeneve t\u00eb bot\u00ebs. Nj\u00eb shkak\u00ebsi e liris\u00eb po ashtu \u00ebsht\u00eb e nevojshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb shpjeguar plot\u00ebsisht k\u00ebto fenomene,\u201d pranon r\u00ebnd\u00ebsin\u00eb e shkak\u00ebsis\u00eb natyrore dhe thjesht k\u00ebmb\u00ebngul n\u00eb nj\u00eb shtes\u00eb p\u00ebrplot\u00ebsuese t\u00eb liris\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb aq e leht\u00eb t\u00eb pajtojm\u00eb antitez\u00ebn me mohimin e kontradikt\u00ebs nga Kanti. Deklarata \u201cNuk ka gj\u00eb t\u00eb atill\u00eb si liria, por gjith\u00e7ka n\u00eb bot\u00eb ndodh vet\u00ebm sipas ligjeve t\u00eb natyr\u00ebs\u201d\u00a0 haptas i reziston tez\u00ebs ose e mohon at\u00eb. N\u00ebse do t\u00eb pranojm\u00eb argumentin e Kantit se t\u00eb dyja deklaratat jan\u00eb nj\u00ebkoh\u00ebsisht t\u00eb v\u00ebrteta, do t\u00eb na duhet ta b\u00ebjm\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb <\/span>pavar\u00ebsisht<\/span><\/i> kontradikt\u00ebs s\u00eb qart\u00eb. Me pak fjal\u00eb, do t\u00eb duhet t\u00eb shfryt\u00ebzojm\u00eb nj\u00eb logjik\u00eb jo-aristoteliane, ashtu si b\u00ebm\u00eb me antinomit\u00eb matematikore.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

(P\u00ebrmbledhje e argumentit t\u00eb <\/span>Seksi dhe euthanazia e arsyes<\/span><\/i>)<\/span><\/span><\/p>

\"\"<\/p>

Nuk do t\u00eb merakosemi n\u00eb \u00e7ka vijon me imt\u00ebsit\u00eb e argumenteve t\u00eb Kantit rreth ideve kozmologjike t\u00eb liris\u00eb dhe Zotit, sa me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn se si grupi i dyt\u00eb i antinomive tejkalon bllokimin e paraqitur nga grupi i par\u00eb. Gjithashtu duhet t\u00eb v\u00ebm\u00eb re q\u00eb ana e majt\u00eb, ose mashkullore, e formulave t\u00eb seksuimit p\u00ebrs\u00ebrit logjik\u00ebn e zgjidhjes s\u00eb Kantit: \u201cKa t\u00eb pakt\u00ebn nj\u00eb x q\u00eb nuk i n\u00ebnshtrohet funksionit fallik\u201d dhe \u201cT\u00eb gjith\u00eb x-t i n\u00ebnshtrohen funksionit fallik\u201d merren si t\u00eb v\u00ebrteta, pavar\u00ebsisht faktit q\u00eb pretendimi i antitez\u00ebs p\u00ebr gjith\u00ebp\u00ebrfshirje qart\u00ebsisht tregohet si i rrem\u00eb nga teza, pra, gjith\u00eb\u00e7kaja e antitez\u00ebs mohohet nga teza.<\/span><\/p>

E megjithat\u00eb, Kanti thot\u00eb q\u00eb antiteza \u00ebsht\u00eb e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb; ai konfirmon ekzistenc\u00ebn e gjith\u00e7kas\u00eb, t\u00eb universit, ashtu si\u00e7 Lacani konfirmon ekzistenc\u00ebn e universit t\u00eb burrave. Meq\u00eb ekzistenca e universit konsiderohej n\u00eb rastin e gruas si e pamundur p\u00ebr shkak se nuk mund t\u00eb gjendej asnj\u00eb kufi n\u00eb zinxhirin e shenjuesve, do t\u00eb ishte e men\u00e7ur t\u00eb supozohej q\u00eb formimi i t\u00eb gjith\u00ebs n\u00eb an\u00ebn mashkullore varet nga parashtrimi i nj\u00eb kufiri. Por kjo zgjidhje m\u00eb leht\u00eb hamend\u00ebsohet sesa mb\u00ebshtetet, pasi n\u00eb an\u00ebn fem\u00ebrore u paraqit\u00ebm me arsye t\u00eb mira p\u00ebr t\u00eb besuar q\u00eb parashtrimi i nj\u00eb kufiri ishte i pamundur, q\u00eb nuk mund t\u00eb kishte metafenomene, as meta-gjuh\u00eb. Nuk mundemi, n\u00eb an\u00ebn mashkullore, t\u00eb ikim prej rregullit t\u00eb mir\u00ebvendosur t\u00eb arsyes \u2013 dhe as nuk e b\u00ebjm\u00eb.<\/span><\/p>

N\u00eb fakt, kufiri n\u00eb an\u00ebn e \u201cm\u00ebngj\u00ebr\u201d, ose dinamike, nuk prodhon mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e nj\u00eb metagjuhe, por thjesht mbulon munges\u00ebn e saj. Kjo arrihet duke shtuar n\u00eb serin\u00eb e fenomeneve (ose shenjuesve) nj\u00eb gjykim mohues n\u00eb lidhje me at\u00eb q\u00eb nuk mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshihet n\u00eb seri. Fraza \u201cNuk ka di\u00e7ka t\u00eb atill\u00eb si liria,\u201d e cila shfaqet n\u00eb antitez\u00ebn e antinomis\u00eb s\u00eb tret\u00eb (p\u00ebr t\u00eb marr\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb si shembull), kryen pik\u00ebrisht k\u00ebt\u00eb funksion, funksionin e kufirit. N\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet k\u00ebtij gjykimi negativ, pakonceptueshm\u00ebria e liris\u00eb konceptualizohet dhe seria e fenomeneve pushon s\u00eb qenuri me nj\u00eb fund t\u00eb hapur; ajo b\u00ebhet nj\u00eb bashk\u00ebsi e mbyllur, sepse tani p\u00ebrfshin \u2013 ndon\u00ebse n\u00eb form\u00eb negative \u2013 at\u00eb q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar prej saj: dometh\u00ebn\u00eb, tani p\u00ebrfshin <\/span>gjith\u00e7ka<\/span><\/i>. Do t\u00eb vini re se kjo <\/span>gjith\u00e7ka<\/span><\/i> shfaqet si pasoj\u00eb n\u00eb fraz\u00ebn e dyt\u00eb t\u00eb antitez\u00ebs s\u00eb antinomis\u00eb s\u00eb tret\u00eb: \u201cPor gjith\u00e7ka n\u00eb bot\u00eb ndodh vet\u00ebm sipas ligjeve t\u00eb natyr\u00ebs.\u201d Papritmas, bota, e cila ishte e ndaluar t\u00eb formohej n\u00eb antinomit\u00eb matematikore, vjen n\u00eb ekzistenc\u00eb n\u00eb an\u00ebn dinamike. <\/span><\/span><\/p>

Duke folur p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb mbivendosje t\u00eb nj\u00eb kufiri si shtes\u00eb p\u00ebrplot\u00ebsuese, si <\/span>suplementim<\/span><\/i> t\u00eb shkak\u00ebsis\u00eb natyrore, n\u00eb fakt kemi paraqitur versionin sipas tez\u00ebs t\u00eb \u00e7ka ndodh. Por nj\u00eb p\u00ebrshkrim tjet\u00ebr po aq i sakt\u00eb, po aq i v\u00ebrtet\u00eb, ofrohet nga antiteza. Sipas k\u00ebtij versioni, ajo q\u00eb ndodh n\u00eb kalimin nga ana fem\u00ebrore n\u00eb at\u00eb mashkullore \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb <\/span>zbritje<\/span><\/i>. Kujtojm\u00eb ankes\u00ebn e Kantit se t\u00eb dyja, edhe teza edhe antiteza e antinomive matematikore, e tejkaluan funksionin e tyre zyrtar, pasi t\u00eb dyja \u201cshpreh\u00ebn m\u00eb shum\u00eb sesa ishte e nevojshme p\u00ebr nj\u00eb kontradikt\u00eb krejt\u00ebsisht t\u00eb plot\u00eb\u201d (285); dometh\u00ebn\u00eb, t\u00eb dyja than\u00eb <\/span>tep\u00ebr shum\u00eb<\/span><\/i>. Nj\u00eb tepric\u00eb e pohimit t\u00eb ekzistenc\u00ebs q\u00eb, p\u00ebr shkak se ishte jo-legjitim, r\u00ebndonte mbi \u00e7do deklarat\u00eb. N\u00eb an\u00ebn dinamike, kjo tepric\u00eb <\/span>zbritet<\/span><\/i> nga fusha fenomenale dhe \u2013 mund ta shohim k\u00ebshtu \u2013 \u00ebsht\u00eb bash kjo zbritje q\u00eb vendos kufirin. Heqja ose ndarja e liris\u00eb nga fusha e shkak\u00ebsis\u00eb mekanike \u00ebsht\u00eb \u00e7ka shp\u00ebrb\u00ebn inkonsistenc\u00ebn radikale, ngecjen absolute, n\u00eb an\u00ebn dinamike. Aty ku fusha matematikore u p\u00ebrcaktua nga homogjeniteti i elementeve t\u00eb saj (t\u00eb cilat ishin t\u00eb gjitha fenomene, objekte t\u00eb p\u00ebrvoj\u00ebs) dhe nga inkonsistenca e deklaratave t\u00eb saj (meqen\u00ebse asnj\u00ebra nuk mund t\u00eb konsiderohej e gabuar), fusha dinamike p\u00ebrcaktohet nga heterogjeniteti i elementeve t\u00eb saj (si rezultat i <\/span>ndarjes<\/span><\/i> t\u00eb dy llojeve t\u00eb shkak\u00ebsis\u00eb, ndijore dhe t\u00eb kuptueshme, n\u00eb fusha t\u00eb ndryshme) dhe \u2013 \u00e7far\u00eb? \u00c7far\u00eb korrespondon n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb an\u00eb me inkonsistenc\u00ebn n\u00eb an\u00ebn tjet\u00ebr? Paplot\u00ebsia.1<\/sup><\/span> Dometh\u00ebn\u00eb, gjith\u00e7kaja formohet n\u00eb an\u00ebn dinamike, por i mungon nj\u00eb element: liria. Shkaku fillestar nuk mund t\u00eb tolerohet ose zhduket nga fusha mekanike q\u00eb ai themelon.2<\/sup><\/span> Kjo do t\u00eb thot\u00eb q\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb an\u00eb gjithmon\u00eb do t\u00eb jet\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtja e t\u00eb th\u00ebnit <\/span>tep\u00ebr pak<\/span><\/i>.3<\/em><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>

N\u00eb formulat e Lacanit, paralelet midis dy an\u00ebve jan\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb dukshme, pasi t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtat simbole p\u00ebrdoren kudo. K\u00ebshtu, mund t\u00eb shohim q\u00eb n\u00eb an\u00ebn dinamike \u00e7\u00ebshtja e ekzistenc\u00ebs kalon drejtp\u00ebrdrejt. Kjo do t\u00eb thot\u00eb q\u00eb teprica e deklaratave t\u00eb ekzistenc\u00ebs q\u00eb shkaktuan konfliktin n\u00eb an\u00ebn fem\u00ebrore jan\u00eb heshtur n\u00eb an\u00ebn mashkullore sepse \u00ebsht\u00eb pik\u00ebrisht ekzistenca \u2013 ose qenia \u2013 q\u00eb <\/span>zbritet<\/span><\/i> nga universi i formuar aty. K\u00ebshtu duhet lexuar vendosja nga Lacani i kuantifikuesit ekzistencial si kufiri i t\u00eb gjith\u00ebs, q\u00eb sundohet nga kuantifikuesi universal. N\u00ebse, pra, nj\u00eb bot\u00eb (q\u00eb vepron vet\u00ebm sipas ligjeve t\u00eb natyr\u00ebs) ose univers (i burrave) mund t\u00eb thuhet se ekziston n\u00eb an\u00ebn dinamike ose mashkullore, nuk duhet t\u00eb harrojm\u00eb se \u00ebsht\u00eb thjesht nj\u00eb ekzistenc\u00eb konceptuale q\u00eb po pretendohet p\u00ebr t\u00eb. Qenia si e till\u00eb i shp\u00ebton formimit t\u00eb konceptit t\u00eb bot\u00ebs. Universi q\u00eb formohet p\u00ebrshkohet k\u00ebshtu nga nj\u00ebfar\u00eb impotence, pasi gjith\u00e7ka mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshihet aty p\u00ebrve\u00e7 qenies, e cila \u00ebsht\u00eb heterogjene kundrejt bot\u00ebs konceptuale.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Q\u00eb teza dhe antiteza \u2013 <\/span>\u2203<\/b>x \u00ac\u03a6x<\/b> dhe <\/span>\u2200<\/b>x \u03a6x<\/b> \u2013 duhet t\u00eb dyja t\u00eb pohohen dhe gjykohen t\u00eb jen\u00eb nj\u00ebkoh\u00ebsisht t\u00eb v\u00ebrteta, shpjegohet, at\u00ebher\u00eb, nga statusi paradoksal i kufirit, i cili nuk mund t\u00eb kuptohet si krejt\u00ebsisht mungues ose si krejt\u00ebsisht i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb bashk\u00ebsin\u00eb e burrave. Sepse, si\u00e7 na m\u00ebsoi Kanti, n\u00ebse dikush do t\u00eb thoshte se nj\u00eb burr\u00eb ekziston, nuk do t\u2019i shtonte absolutisht asgj\u00eb k\u00ebtij burr\u00eb, p\u00ebr konceptin e burrit. K\u00ebshtu mund t\u00eb argumentojm\u00eb se k\u00ebtij koncepti nuk i mungon asgj\u00eb. E megjithat\u00eb, ai nuk p\u00ebrfshin qenien dhe n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kuptim \u00ebsht\u00eb i pap\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm, pasi koncepti nuk mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshij\u00eb faktin q\u00eb gj\u00ebja e em\u00ebrtuar nga ai n\u00eb fakt ekziston.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Kjo na kthen s\u00ebrish te \u00e7\u00ebshtja e \u201ctestimit t\u00eb realitetit\u201d q\u00eb ngrit\u00ebm m\u00eb par\u00eb. Premtuam q\u00eb kjo procedur\u00eb, e cila u konsiderua e pamundur n\u00eb an\u00ebn fem\u00ebrore, do t\u00eb hynte m\u00eb n\u00eb fund n\u00eb loj\u00eb n\u00eb an\u00ebn mashkullore. Vazhdojm\u00eb ta mbajm\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb q\u00ebndrim, edhe pse \u00ebsht\u00eb qart\u00ebsisht momenti p\u00ebr t\u00eb sqaruar se \u00e7far\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb testimi i realitetit n\u00eb terma frojdian\u00eb. Nuk ka vend m\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb filluar sesa eseja e Frojdit \u201cMohimi,\u201d [<\/span>Die Verneinung<\/span><\/i>] sepse ky tekst i ka kornizat pothuajse n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtat terma si\u00e7 ne, n\u00eb vazhd\u00ebn e Kantit dhe Lacanit, kemi formuluar diskutimin ton\u00eb. Kur Frojdi b\u00ebn komentin \u201cMe ndihm\u00ebn e simbolit t\u00eb mohimit, mendimi \u00e7lirohet nga kufizimet e ndrydhjes dhe pasurohet me material pa t\u00eb cilin nuk do mund t\u00eb funksiononte si\u00e7 duhet,\u201d4<\/sup><\/span> duhet t\u00eb na kujtohen menj\u00ebher\u00eb antinomit\u00eb dinamike. Sepse simboli i mohimit \u00ebsht\u00eb pik\u00ebrisht kufiri q\u00eb i lejon Kantit, n\u00eb antinomit\u00eb dinamike, t\u00eb pohoj\u00eb nj\u00eb njohuri p\u00ebr \u201cgjith\u00e7ka n\u00eb bot\u00eb,\u201d ku, n\u00eb antinomit\u00eb matematike, ai u detyrua t\u00eb pranonte se arsyetimi mbi bot\u00ebn d\u00ebshton. Edhe n\u00eb antinomit\u00eb dinamike, Kanti i jep vetes material, nj\u00eb objekt mendimi, edhe pse, n\u00eb konfliktin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm, arsyes iu mohua mund\u00ebsia e nj\u00eb objekti t\u00eb till\u00eb dhe qe e d\u00ebnuar thjesht t\u00eb \u201cdiskutonte p\u00ebr asgj\u00eb\u201d (283).<\/span><\/span><\/p>

\u00c7far\u00eb thot\u00eb Frojdi p\u00ebr procesin e testimit t\u00eb realitetit? Ai thot\u00eb, para s\u00eb gjithash, di\u00e7ka q\u00eb e ka th\u00ebn\u00eb q\u00eb nga <\/span>Projekti<\/span><\/i> (1895) dhe q\u00eb e tha n\u00eb form\u00ebn m\u00eb mbres\u00ebl\u00ebn\u00ebse n\u00eb <\/span>Tri ese mbi teorin\u00eb e seksualitetit<\/span><\/i> (1905): gjetja e nj\u00eb objekti \u00ebsht\u00eb rigjetja e tij. K\u00ebtu, synimi i testimit t\u00eb realitetit \u201cnuk \u00ebsht\u00eb t\u00eb gjesh nj\u00eb objekt n\u00eb perceptimin real q\u00eb korrespondon me at\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebrfytyrohet, por t\u00eb <\/span>ri-gjesh<\/span><\/i> nj\u00eb objekt t\u00eb till\u00eb, t\u00eb bindesh se \u00ebsht\u00eb ende aty.\u201d5<\/sup><\/span> Ai thot\u00eb edhe se nj\u00eb nga problemet q\u00eb paraqitet n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb proces \u00ebsht\u00eb ky:<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Riprodhimi i nj\u00eb perceptimi si p\u00ebrfytyrim nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb gjithmon\u00eb besnik; ai mund t\u00eb modifikohet nga tipare q\u00eb lihen jasht\u00eb, ose t\u00eb ndryshohet nga shkrirja e elementeve t\u00eb ndryshme. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast, testimi i realitetit duhet t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktoj\u00eb se sa larg shkojn\u00eb k\u00ebto shtremb\u00ebrime. Por \u00ebsht\u00eb e qart\u00eb se nj\u00eb parakusht p\u00ebr ngritjen e testimit t\u00eb realitetit \u00ebsht\u00eb q\u00eb duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb humbur objekte t\u00eb cil\u00ebt dikur sillnin k\u00ebnaq\u00ebsi t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb.6<\/sup><\/span><\/p>

N\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt me keqperceptimin e zakonsh\u00ebm, testimi i realitetit nuk p\u00ebrshkruhet k\u00ebtu si nj\u00eb proces me t\u00eb cilin puqim perceptimet tona me nj\u00eb realitet t\u00eb jasht\u00ebm e t\u00eb pavarur. N\u00eb fakt, <\/span>humbja<\/span><\/i> p\u00ebrgjithnj\u00eb e atij realiteti \u2013 ose e reales: nj\u00eb realitet q\u00eb nuk ka qen\u00eb kurr\u00eb i pranish\u00ebm si i till\u00eb \u2013 \u00ebsht\u00eb parakushti p\u00ebr p\u00ebrcaktimin e statusit objektiv t\u00eb perceptimeve tona. Jo vet\u00ebm q\u00eb realja nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb e disponueshme p\u00ebr krahasim me perceptimet tona, por, l\u00ebshon pe Frojdi, ne mund t\u00eb supozojm\u00eb se k\u00ebto t\u00eb fundit [perceptimet] jan\u00eb gjithmon\u00eb disi t\u00eb shtremb\u00ebruara, t\u00eb pasakta. \u00c7far\u00eb, at\u00ebher\u00eb, e shpjegon dallimin midis perceptimeve subjektive dhe objektive; \u00e7far\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyn p\u00ebr t\u00eb transformuar l\u00ebmshin e fenomeneve n\u00eb konflikt dhe t\u00eb shtremb\u00ebruara n\u00eb bindjen se p\u00ebrvoja jon\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb objektive? P\u00ebrgjigjia, q\u00eb tashm\u00eb duhet t\u00eb jet\u00eb gjysm\u00eb e hamend\u00ebsuar, \u00ebsht\u00eb di\u00e7ka e till\u00eb: n\u00eb morin\u00eb e perceptimeve tona di\u00e7ka shtohet q\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb perceptim i ri, p\u00ebrmbajtje e re ndijimore; n\u00eb vend t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj, kjo shtes\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e inteligjueshme [e kuptueshme] dhe pa p\u00ebrmbajtje: nj\u00eb gjykim negativ q\u00eb sh\u00ebnon kufirin e perceptimeve tona dhe, rrjedhimisht, humbjen e objektit q\u00eb \u201csjell k\u00ebnaq\u00ebsi t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb.\u201d Gjykimi negativ e p\u00ebrjashton k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt nga mendimi \u2013 ose, m\u00eb sakt\u00eb, p\u00ebrjashtimi i k\u00ebtij objekti e b\u00ebn mendimin t\u00eb mundsh\u00ebm. Kjo do t\u00eb thot\u00eb se termi <\/span>p\u00ebrjashtim<\/span><\/i> nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb krejt i sakt\u00eb p\u00ebr aq sa ai mund t\u00eb ket\u00eb prirje t\u00eb n\u00ebnkuptoj\u00eb nj\u00eb mosmarr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie midis objektit real dhe objektit t\u00eb mendimit, nd\u00ebrsa Frojdi sugjeron nj\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie t\u00eb qart\u00eb midis k\u00ebtyre dy termave. Sepse perceptimet e ik\u00ebse duket se fitojn\u00eb pesh\u00ebn e objektivitetit vet\u00ebm kur jan\u00eb t\u00eb r\u00ebnduara ose t\u00eb ankoruara nga objekti i p\u00ebrjashtuar real. Pra, vet\u00ebm kur perceptimet tona fillojn\u00eb t\u2019i referohen k\u00ebtij objekti t\u00eb humbur t\u00eb k\u00ebnaq\u00ebsis\u00eb, ato do mund t\u00eb konsiderohen objektive. Duke iu referuar objektit, ato fillojn\u00eb t\u00eb kuptohen si manifestime t\u00eb tij. Pra, objekti p\u00ebrjashtohet nga perceptimet, por jo thjesht, pasi ai tani funksionon si ajo q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb \u201cn\u00eb to m\u00eb shum\u00eb se to\u201d: garancia e objektivitetit t\u00eb tyre. N\u00ebse Frojdi parap\u00eblqen ta em\u00ebrtoj\u00eb procesin e testimit t\u00eb realitetit me foljen e dyfisht\u00eb <\/span>rigjej<\/span><\/i> sesa <\/span>gjej<\/span><\/i>, kjo \u00ebsht\u00eb jo vet\u00ebm sepse objekti i humbur nuk mund t\u00eb gjendet drejtp\u00ebrdrejt dhe duhet n\u00eb fakt t\u00eb rigjendet n\u00eb manifestimet e tij, por edhe sepse ai gjendet disa her\u00eb, s\u00ebrish dhe s\u00ebrish, n\u00eb nj\u00eb mori perceptimesh q\u00eb, sado t\u00eb ndryshme t\u00eb jen\u00eb nga nj\u00ebra-tjetra (shtremb\u00ebrimet, modifikimet), megjithat\u00eb duhet t\u00eb llogariten si d\u00ebshmi e t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtit realitet t\u00eb paqassh\u00ebm q\u00eb t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata \u2013 i t\u00ebr\u00eb universi i fenomeneve \u2013 jan\u00eb t\u00eb pafuqish\u00ebm p\u00ebr ta p\u00ebrmbajtur. K\u00ebshtu, nd\u00ebrsa garanton q\u00eb perceptimet tregojn\u00eb nj\u00eb realitet objektiv dhe t\u00eb pavarur, gjykimi negativ e mban \u2013 i duhet ta mbaj\u00eb \u2013 k\u00ebt\u00eb realitet si t\u00eb pakapsh\u00ebm, sepse n\u00ebse do t\u00eb merrte nj\u00eb form\u00eb fenomenale, do t\u00eb b\u00ebhej thjesht nj\u00eb tjet\u00ebr perceptim; n\u00eb t\u00eb cilin rast, universi i mendimit do t\u00eb shembej.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

P\u00ebr t\u2019u kthyer te diskutimi yn\u00eb mbi dallimin seksual, nuk duhet t\u00eb ket\u00eb tani konfuzion p\u00ebr faktin se n\u00ebse burri, ndryshe nga gruaja, mund t\u00eb pretendohet t\u00eb ekzistoj\u00eb, eks-sistenca ose qenia e tij mbetet, megjithat\u00eb e paqasshme, pasi i shp\u00ebton fush\u00ebs konceptuale ose simbolike n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ekzistenca e tij merr trajt\u00eb. N\u00ebse dallimet midis burrave mund t\u00eb lihen m\u00ebnjan\u00eb dhe nj\u00eb burr\u00eb mund t\u00eb z\u00ebvend\u00ebsohet me nj\u00eb tjet\u00ebr sepse ata jan\u00eb manifestime t\u00eb s\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebs gj\u00eb, se \u00e7far\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb kjo gj\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb ende e panjohur dhe duhet t\u00eb mbetet k\u00ebshtu. N\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb korrelative, asnj\u00eb burr\u00eb nuk mund t\u00eb mburret se \u00ebsht\u00eb mish\u00ebrim i k\u00ebsaj gj\u00ebje \u2013 maskulinitetit \u2013 ashtu si\u00e7 asnj\u00eb koncept nuk mund t\u00eb thuhet se mish\u00ebron qenien.<\/span><\/p>

T\u00eb gjitha pretendimet p\u00ebr maskulinitet jan\u00eb, at\u00ebher\u00eb, nj\u00eb shtirje e past\u00ebr; sikurse \u00e7do shfaqje e feminitetit \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb maskarad\u00eb e past\u00ebr. N\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet desubstancializimit q\u00eb i b\u00ebn seksit, Lacani na ka lejuar t\u00eb perceptojm\u00eb mashtrimin n\u00eb zem\u00ebr t\u00eb \u00e7do pretendimi p\u00ebr identitet pozitiv seksual. Dhe ai e ka b\u00ebr\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb barabar p\u00ebr burrat dhe p\u00ebr grat\u00eb. Kjo nuk do t\u00eb thot\u00eb q\u00eb ai i ka trajtuar simetrikisht ose q\u00eb i ka konceptuar ata si p\u00ebrplot\u00ebsime t\u00eb nj\u00ebri-tjetrit. Nj\u00eb univers burrash dhe grash \u00ebsht\u00eb i pakonceptuesh\u00ebm; nj\u00ebra kategori nuk e p\u00ebrplot\u00ebson tjetr\u00ebn, nuk kompenson p\u00ebr at\u00eb q\u00eb mungon n\u00eb tjetr\u00ebn. N\u00ebse dikush do t\u00eb besonte n\u00eb mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e nj\u00eb universi t\u00eb till\u00eb, ai do t\u00eb besonte n\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien seksuale, me gjith\u00eb implikimet e saj heteroseksiste.<\/span><\/p>

Por Lacani jo. P\u00ebrkundrazi, ai na tregon sakt\u00ebsisht pse supozimi heteroseksist \u2013 q\u00eb mund t\u00eb formulohet k\u00ebshtu: burrat duan grat\u00eb dhe grat\u00eb duan burrat \u2013 nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb propozim legjitim. Sepse ky presupozon q\u00eb nj\u00eb kuantifikues universal, nj\u00eb <\/span>t\u00eb gjith\u00eb<\/span><\/i>, i modifikon edhe <\/span>burrat<\/span><\/i> edhe <\/span>grat\u00eb<\/span><\/i> dhe kjo \u00ebsht\u00eb pik\u00ebrisht ajo q\u00eb formulat sfidojn\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb universi i grave \u00ebsht\u00eb, si\u00e7 kemi argumentuar gjer\u00ebsisht, thjesht <\/span>i pamundur<\/span><\/i>, nj\u00eb univers i burrave \u00ebsht\u00eb i mundur vet\u00ebm me kusht q\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtojm\u00eb di\u00e7ka nga ky univers. Universi i burrave \u00ebsht\u00eb, at\u00ebher\u00eb, nj\u00eb iluzion i ndjellur prej nj\u00eb urdh\u00ebr-<\/span>ndalese<\/span><\/i>: mos p\u00ebrfshini gjith\u00e7ka n\u00eb t\u00eb gjith\u00ebn tuaj! N\u00eb vend q\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktoj\u00eb nj\u00eb univers t\u00eb burrave q\u00eb p\u00ebrplot\u00ebsohet nga nj\u00eb univers i grave, Lacani e p\u00ebrkufizon burrin si ndalesa ndaj nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb universi dhe gruan si pamund\u00ebsin\u00eb e b\u00ebrjes s\u00eb k\u00ebsaj. Marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnia seksuale d\u00ebshton p\u00ebr dy arsye: \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur dhe \u00ebsht\u00eb e ndaluar. Bashkoni k\u00ebto dy d\u00ebshtime; nuk do t\u00eb dilni kurr\u00eb me nj\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00eb.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Dallimi seksual dhe superegoja<\/b><\/span><\/p>

Ky argument i ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb vetes vet\u00ebm dy detyra: t\u00eb sfidoj\u00eb supozimet rreth seksit q\u00eb shpeshher\u00eb bashk\u00ebndahen nga pozicionet historiciste dhe dekonstruktiviste; dhe t\u00eb sqaroj\u00eb alternativ\u00ebn q\u00eb ofron Lacani duke shkoqitur borxhin e tij ndaj filozofis\u00eb kritike. P\u00ebr t\u00eb shtjelluar plot\u00ebsisht implikimet e k\u00ebsaj teorie alternative t\u00eb dallimit seksual do t\u00eb k\u00ebrkonte m\u00eb shum\u00eb koh\u00eb dhe hap\u00ebsir\u00eb sesa kam k\u00ebtu. Megjithat\u00eb, nuk dua ta mbyll k\u00ebt\u00eb kapitull t\u00eb hetimit tim pa theksuar t\u00eb pakt\u00ebn nj\u00eb pik\u00eb t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme dhe pa sugjeruar nj\u00eb rrug\u00eb p\u00ebr ta ndjekur at\u00eb. Pika \u00ebsht\u00eb kjo: shpjegimi kantian i antinomive dinamike dhe shpjegimi lakanian i antinomive mashkullore, t\u00eb dyja p\u00ebrputhen me p\u00ebrshkrimin psikoanalitik t\u00eb superegos.<\/span><\/p>

N\u00eb <\/span>Kritik\u00ebn e gjykimit<\/span><\/i>, Kanti, duke folur p\u00ebr sublimen dinamike7<\/sup><\/span>, p\u00ebrmend imazhe shk\u00ebmbinjsh k\u00ebrc\u00ebnues, resh stuhie, vullkanesh, uragan\u00ebsh \u2013 imazhe t\u00eb tmerrshme t\u00eb nj\u00eb natyre t\u00eb fuqishme dhe potencialisht shkat\u00ebrruese q\u00eb, megjithat\u00eb, thot\u00eb ai, \u201cnuk kan\u00eb sundim mbi ne\u201d8<\/sup><\/span>. Cil\u00ebsia e \u201ca thua se\u201d apo \u201cduket sikur\u201d q\u00eb i bashk\u00ebngjitet sublimes dinamike shpesh ka ngjallur kureshtje te komentator\u00ebt. \u00c7far\u00eb do t\u00eb thot\u00eb Kanti kur flet p\u00ebr nj\u00eb objekt t\u00eb friksh\u00ebm nga i cili n\u00eb fakt nuk kemi frik\u00eb? Ai do t\u00eb thot\u00eb se nga pozicioni yn\u00eb n\u00eb bot\u00ebn fenomenale, ne mund t\u00eb formulojm\u00eb vet\u00ebm <\/span>mund\u00ebsin\u00eb<\/span><\/i> e k\u00ebsaj force t\u00eb tmerrshme dhe jo <\/span>ekzistenc\u00ebn<\/span><\/i> e saj, ashtu si\u00e7 mund t\u00eb formulojm\u00eb vet\u00ebm mund\u00ebsin\u00eb dhe jo ekzistenc\u00ebn e Zotit, liris\u00eb, shpirtit. Kjo mund\u00ebsi e nj\u00eb zone p\u00ebrtej, e pakufizuar nga kushtet tona fenomenale, varet pik\u00ebrisht nga p\u00ebrmbarimi i gjykimit t\u00eb ekzistenc\u00ebs.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Po i nj\u00ebjti shpjegim na jep kle\u00e7k\u00ebn p\u00ebr paradokset e superegos. K\u00ebtu, s\u00ebrish, eg\u00ebrsia e superegos nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb sakt\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr t\u2019u patur frik\u00eb, sepse kjo eg\u00ebrsi nuk varet nga ashp\u00ebrsia e ndalesave t\u00eb saj (n\u00eb kuptimin q\u00eb superegoja mund t\u00eb imagjinohet pozitivisht si nj\u00eb lloj babai i rrept\u00eb ose q\u00eb ndalesat e tij mund t\u00eb rroken pozitivisht), por nga konvertimi i babait n\u00eb nj\u00eb real t\u00eb pamundur, dometh\u00ebn\u00eb, nj\u00eb qenie p\u00ebr ekzistenc\u00ebn e s\u00eb cil\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb prononcohemi. Ndalesa e posa\u00e7me e superegos e shnd\u00ebrron di\u00e7ka n\u00eb t\u00eb path\u00ebnshme dhe t\u00eb pab\u00ebshme, sigurisht, por nuk thot\u00eb se <\/span>\u00e7far\u00eb<\/span><\/i> nuk duhet t\u00eb themi ose t\u00eb b\u00ebjm\u00eb; ai thjesht imponon nj\u00eb kufi q\u00eb b\u00ebn q\u00eb gjith\u00e7ka q\u00eb b\u00ebjm\u00eb dhe themi t\u00eb duket si asgj\u00eb n\u00eb krahasim me at\u00eb q\u00eb nuk mund t\u00eb b\u00ebjm\u00eb ose t\u00eb themi. Si\u00e7 shpjegon Lacani, \u201cSuperegoja… [urdhri \u201cG\u00ebzo!\u201d apo \u201cShijo!\u201d] \u00ebsht\u00eb korrelati i kastrimit, q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb shenja q\u00eb stolit pranimin ton\u00eb q\u00eb <\/span>jouissance<\/span><\/i>-a e Tjetrit, trupi i Tjetrit, \u00ebsht\u00eb e premtuar vet\u00ebm n\u00eb pafund\u00ebsi.\u201d9<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>

Dhe prap\u00eb, porsa caktojm\u00eb q\u00eb kjo logjik\u00eb e kufirit ose p\u00ebrjashtimit i p\u00ebrkufizon antinomit\u00eb dinamike, subjektin mashkull dhe superegon, ne kemi nj\u00eb problem, ose k\u00ebshtu duket n\u00eb shikim t\u00eb par\u00eb. Sepse tani duket se po japim nj\u00eb dor\u00eb n\u00eb mb\u00ebshtetje t\u00eb argumentit fam\u00ebkeq q\u00eb e paraqet gruan si n\u00eb themel pa disponim p\u00ebr t\u00eb zhvilluar nj\u00eb superego dhe k\u00ebshtu q\u00eb mund t\u00eb bjer\u00eb pre e nj\u00ebfar\u00eb shkujdesie etike. N\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj, gjith\u00e7ka q\u00eb mund t\u00eb sugjerojm\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb q\u00eb fusha e etik\u00ebs ka tep\u00ebr shum\u00eb koh\u00eb q\u00eb teorizohet n\u00eb terma t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj logjike t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb superegoike t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtimit ose kufirit. Tani \u00ebsht\u00eb koha t\u00eb mendojm\u00eb ca p\u00ebr zhvillimin e nj\u00eb etike t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshirjes ose t\u00eb pakufizuar, dometh\u00ebn\u00eb, nj\u00eb etike t\u00eb posa\u00e7me p\u00ebr gruan. Nj\u00eb tjet\u00ebr logjik\u00eb e superegos duhet t\u00eb z\u00ebr\u00eb fill.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPjesa e par\u00eb<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t

Lexom\u00eb d\u00ebshir\u00ebn: Seksi dhe euthanazia e arsyes (I)\u00a0<\/b><\/a><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPjesa e dyt\u00eb<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t

Lexom\u00eb d\u00ebshir\u00ebn: Seksi dhe euthanazia e arsyes (II)\u00a0<\/b><\/a><\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPjesa e tret\u00eb<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t

Lexom\u00eb d\u00ebshir\u00ebn: Seksi dhe euthanazia e arsyes (III)\u00a0<\/b><\/a><\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTeksti i plot\u00eb<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t

Lexom\u00eb d\u00ebshir\u00ebn: Seksi dhe euthanazia e arsyes (E plot\u00eb)<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/h2><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Joan Copjec \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb teoriciene dhe kritike e njohur n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e teoris\u00eb filmike dhe studimeve kulturore, me ndikim t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb n\u00eb teorin\u00eb feministe dhe psikoanaliz\u00ebn lakaniane. Ajo \u00ebsht\u00eb profesoresh\u00eb n\u00eb Universitetin Brown n\u00eb New York dhe \u00ebsht\u00eb autore e disa librave t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm, p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb <\/span>Read My Desire: Lacan Against the Historicists<\/span> dhe <\/span>Imagine There’s No Woman: Ethics and Sublimation<\/span>. Copjec \u00ebsht\u00eb e njohur p\u00ebr analizat e saj t\u00eb thella dhe t\u00eb sofistikuara, ku kombinon filozofin\u00eb, psikoanaliz\u00ebn dhe teorin\u00eb sociale p\u00ebr t\u00eb sfiduar kuptimet konvencionale dhe p\u00ebr t\u00eb ofruar perspektiva t\u00eb reja mbi subjektin dhe d\u00ebshir\u00ebn njer\u00ebzore. Ajo gjithashtu \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb nga figurat kryesore q\u00eb ka ndihmuar n\u00eb p\u00ebrhapjen dhe zhvillimin e teoris\u00eb lakaniane n\u00eb kontekstin anglo-amerikan, duke kontribuar n\u00eb diskutimet akademike dhe kritike mbi identitetin, gjinin\u00eb dhe politik\u00ebn kulturore.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\u00a01. Jacques-Alain Miller e shtjellon k\u00ebt\u00eb dallim lakanian midis inkonsistenc\u00ebs dhe paplot\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb lidhje me dallimin seksual n\u00eb seminarin e tij t\u00eb pabotuar \u201cExtimite\u201d (1985-86).<\/span><\/span><\/p>

2. <\/span><\/span>Duke huazuar nga Fredric Jameson, Sllavoj Zhizhek p\u00ebrvet\u00ebson nocionin e \u201cnd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsuesit t\u00eb venitur\u201d p\u00ebr nj\u00eb shpjegim lakanian t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj zhdukjeje t\u00eb shkakut nga fusha e efekteve t\u00eb tij; shih Zhizhek, <\/span>For They Know Not What They Do<\/span><\/i> (London dhe New York: Verso, 1991), fq. 182-197.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

3. <\/span><\/span>Thomas Weiskel, n\u00eb librin e tij t\u00eb shquar <\/span>The Romantic Sublime<\/span><\/i> (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), p\u00ebrfundon t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn e sakt\u00eb; sipas shpjegimit t\u00eb tij, sublimja matematike \u00ebsht\u00eb e lidhur me \u201ctep\u00ebr pak kuptim,\u201d nd\u00ebrsa sublimjaa dinamike karakterizohet nga nj\u00eb tepric\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00eb shenjuarit, ose \u201ctep\u00ebr shum\u00eb kuptim.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>

4. <\/span>\u00a0Sigmund Freud, “Negation” (1925), SE, v\u00ebll. 19, fq. 236.<\/span><\/p>

5. <\/span>Ibid, fq. 237-38.<\/span><\/p>

6. Ibid, fq. 238. <\/span><\/span><\/p>

7. <\/span><\/span>Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Lyotard, n\u00eb <\/span>Le\u00e7ons sur l’analytique du sublime<\/span><\/i> (Paris: Galilee, 1991), argumenton bindsh\u00ebm se nuk ka dy sublime, por dy modalitete t\u00eb konsiderimit t\u00eb sublimes.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

8. <\/span><\/span>Immanuel Kant, <\/span>The Critique of Judgement<\/span><\/i>, p<\/span>\u00ebrkth<\/span>. James Creed Meredith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 988), fq. 109.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

9. Lacan, Encore<\/i>, f. 13<\/span><\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Imazhi i ballin\u00ebs:<\/strong><\/em><\/span>\u00a0Sasha Matveeva<\/a> n\u00eb<\/span>\u00a0Unsplash<\/a><\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

N\u00ebse do t\u00eb luanim sipas rregullave t\u00eb historicizmit, do t\u00eb duhej t\u00eb argumentonim se, si gruaja, as burri nuk ekziston, q\u00eb asnj\u00eb kategori e p\u00ebrgjithshme e burrit nuk z\u00eb vend n\u00eb shum\u00ebllojshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e pozicioneve subjektive mashkullore q\u00eb \u00e7do epok\u00eb nd\u00ebrton. K\u00ebshtu, nj\u00eb argument nominalist, si nj\u00ebfar\u00eb tret\u00ebsi teorik, aktualisht ia del t\u00eb tres\u00eb kategorit\u00eb e burrit dhe gruas nj\u00ebsoj. Megjithat\u00eb, sipas Lacanit nuk mund t\u00eb argumentojm\u00eb simetrikisht se burri nuk ekziston. Ne kemi, n\u00ebse duhet besuar ana e majt\u00eb e tabel\u00ebs s\u00eb seksuimit, asnj\u00eb problem n\u00eb gjetjen e tij, n\u00eb shpalljen e ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":24591,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"ocs-kendveshtrim-category-post-sidebar","ocean_second_sidebar":"0","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"0","ocean_custom_header_template":"0","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"0","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"0","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"on","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"0","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"off","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,4,829],"tags":[99,529,825,826,237,828,827],"class_list":["post-23778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-kulture","category-kryenyje","category-perkthime","tag-feminizem","tag-genc-shehu","tag-joan-copjec","tag-lexome-deshiren-seksi-dhe-euthanazia-e-arsyes","tag-perkthim","tag-seksi","tag-teori-feministe","entry","has-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23778","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23778"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23778\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23800,"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23778\/revisions\/23800"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nyje.al\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}