Scan barcode
grahammcgrew's review against another edition
2.0
No doubt I am the idiot here, but I could have used some more sensation words, and Bataille's ain't-I-shocking fixation on violence seems like high school nihilism. Plenty of the ol' Platonic world-hating dualism here too . . .
casparb's review against another edition
4.0
Again with Bataille, the title undersells the scope of the work. This is a highly anthropological text, that lingers delightfully in prehistory, and prehistoric relations with animals. A wonderful metaphor - 'water in water' for the relationship animals/nature.
There seemed to be a very steep difficulty spike about halfway through. Perhaps that is remedied with greater attention.
There seemed to be a very steep difficulty spike about halfway through. Perhaps that is remedied with greater attention.
janthonytucson's review against another edition
4.0
The weaving in of Marcel Mauss work in the gift exchange how the exchange of gifts in ritual is a social phenomenon, since it involves legal, economic, moral, religious, aesthetic, and ultimately the gift is a way of establishing the social bonds and creating obligations yet Bataille goes further by using this as a way of explicating the sacred and the profane and the gift is an act of transcending the everyday world and entering into the realm of the sacred.
This is an interesting book, that I found myself getting frustrated at times as I felt Bataille was intentionally being obtuse when he could have been more direct. This is written more in the style of poetry rather than an explicit exploration in an academic framework. I'll need to revisit this once I 'consume' some more Bataille and see what I missed as I suspect I have missed some ideas due to the purposeful obfuscation of concepts (although I suspect Bataille would argue it is perfectly clear and I believe this is part of the issue).
This is an interesting book, that I found myself getting frustrated at times as I felt Bataille was intentionally being obtuse when he could have been more direct. This is written more in the style of poetry rather than an explicit exploration in an academic framework. I'll need to revisit this once I 'consume' some more Bataille and see what I missed as I suspect I have missed some ideas due to the purposeful obfuscation of concepts (although I suspect Bataille would argue it is perfectly clear and I believe this is part of the issue).
spentworth's review against another edition
2.0
I desperately want to like this book, I really like Bataille as an author, but I can't help but feel like everything said within has been articulated more clearly and rigourously elsewhere, even by Bataille himself. It honestly feels like if you just went and read some Feuerbach, some Marx, and The Accursed Share you'd get 99% of the best bits of this book while also having read a number of classics.
There is a sense in which the philosophy presented within is systematic, a definite attempt at an argument is made and key ideas proposed, but the definitions offered are so opaque it's hard to follow and Bataille has an awful habit of vaguely waving his hands at key junctures in the argument. The prose is oddly poetic too but in a way which only obfuscates the meaning.
Many of the base ideas too seem overly simplistic or have been outmoded by progress in anthropology or other fields. Like, okay, so we have an animal as existing in a form of immediacy, indistinguishable from the surrounding world in which it exists, and then tools are created by man which alienates him from the world and allows him to turn the whole world to his ends / impose his will upon the world, etc... Yet, of course many animals can use tools, are they yet alienated?
This objection is not too profound and easy enough to work around, but in the effort one has to put in to make the ideas relevant and applicable, is it really worth it? Well, you might say, psychoanalysis is useful in philosophy even if it is no longer backed up as empirical fact by modern psychology. And you'd be right, but psychoanalysis has been wildly useful as a theoretical tool for many prominent philosophers and so there's obvious value in studying it if you want to engage with the modern philosophy canon. meanwhile, who has ever thought to apply the ideas from this book? Who deems Bataille's framework here to be useful or insightful?
I want to like this book, but it feels like a waste of time.
There is a sense in which the philosophy presented within is systematic, a definite attempt at an argument is made and key ideas proposed, but the definitions offered are so opaque it's hard to follow and Bataille has an awful habit of vaguely waving his hands at key junctures in the argument. The prose is oddly poetic too but in a way which only obfuscates the meaning.
Many of the base ideas too seem overly simplistic or have been outmoded by progress in anthropology or other fields. Like, okay, so we have an animal as existing in a form of immediacy, indistinguishable from the surrounding world in which it exists, and then tools are created by man which alienates him from the world and allows him to turn the whole world to his ends / impose his will upon the world, etc... Yet, of course many animals can use tools, are they yet alienated?
This objection is not too profound and easy enough to work around, but in the effort one has to put in to make the ideas relevant and applicable, is it really worth it? Well, you might say, psychoanalysis is useful in philosophy even if it is no longer backed up as empirical fact by modern psychology. And you'd be right, but psychoanalysis has been wildly useful as a theoretical tool for many prominent philosophers and so there's obvious value in studying it if you want to engage with the modern philosophy canon. meanwhile, who has ever thought to apply the ideas from this book? Who deems Bataille's framework here to be useful or insightful?
I want to like this book, but it feels like a waste of time.
femto's review against another edition
3.0
Nunca antes había tenido la oportunidad de leer a un autor en dos obras de temáticas tan distintas para poder ver la diferencia, y si, es mucha, el vocabulario es muy distinto además de la intención, si no supiera que son de la misma persona no me habría dado cuenta.
Quizás la filosofía es una forma distinta de aproximación, y eso me permite entender mejor a otros escritores, aunque aún me queda la sensación de que puedo ser escrito de una forma más concisa. Respecto al libro en si no encontré muchas novedades o ideas que no hayan estado en alguna otra parte y quizás me hubiera sentido mas cómodo si hubiera hecho alguna alusión a bibliografía de biología para ciertos casos porque creo era bastante necesaria, Aun así hay ciertos enfoques que fueron muy novedosos.
Quizás la filosofía es una forma distinta de aproximación, y eso me permite entender mejor a otros escritores, aunque aún me queda la sensación de que puedo ser escrito de una forma más concisa. Respecto al libro en si no encontré muchas novedades o ideas que no hayan estado en alguna otra parte y quizás me hubiera sentido mas cómodo si hubiera hecho alguna alusión a bibliografía de biología para ciertos casos porque creo era bastante necesaria, Aun así hay ciertos enfoques que fueron muy novedosos.
volbet's review
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
This could be considered an addendum to La Part maudite , but that might be selling it quite short.
As much as Georges Bataille's actually theory of religion is extremely interesting, essentially setting up a reverse of Max Weber's The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Seeing production as humans striving toward the divine through destruction/intimacy, as well as seeing rationality as an ultimately destructive force when coupled with the spiritual.
But I find this more interesting a methodological work.
This is arguably the most Hegalian that Bataille has been in his theoretical work, in no small part due to the admiration of Alexandre Kojève. Essentially, Bataille is creating a bridging point between the dialectic, structualism and what would become post-structualism.
As much as Georges Bataille's actually theory of religion is extremely interesting, essentially setting up a reverse of Max Weber's The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Seeing production as humans striving toward the divine through destruction/intimacy, as well as seeing rationality as an ultimately destructive force when coupled with the spiritual.
But I find this more interesting a methodological work.
This is arguably the most Hegalian that Bataille has been in his theoretical work, in no small part due to the admiration of Alexandre Kojève. Essentially, Bataille is creating a bridging point between the dialectic, structualism and what would become post-structualism.
More...