Human Rights After Deleuze: Towards an An-Archic Jurisprudence

ISBN-13: 9781509957705 / Angielski / Twarda / 2022 / 288 str.

UK) Marneros Christos (University of Kent

Spis treści

PART I DELEUZE’S CRITICAL REMARKS ON HUMAN RIGHTS Introduction I. Human Rights: ‘A Flashing Light’ of Resistance, or ‘The Blinding Light’ of Authoritarian Tendencies and ‘The Death’ of Every Potentiality? II. Why Deleuze? III. A Note on Method as Problematisation: What is the Problem with the Problem? Or How Does the Examination Proceed? 1. Deleuze on Human Rights Prologue I. Human Rights Through Deleuze’s Eyes: Does the Philosopher Add Something New to the Multiple Critiques of Human Rights? II. Immanence vs Transcendence and Becoming vs Being: An Introductory Note III. Commentators on Deleuze’s Critique of Human Rights: The Cases of Alexandre Lefebvre and Paul Patton PART II HUMAN RIGHTS, IMMANENCE, TRANSENDENCE AND THE DISTINCTION OF ETHICS AND MORALITY 2. The Question of Immanence Prologue I. Immanence vs Transcendence: The Case of Spinoza II. A Definition in Constant Flux: The (Immanent Mode of) Deleuzian Immanence, or How is Immanence? III. Where to after the Affirmation of Immanence? 3. Immanent Ethics and Transcendent Morality: Deleuze’s An-Archic Ethos Prologue I. ‘To Have Done with the Judgment of God’ II. Human Rights in a State of Abeyance(?) PART III THE SUBJECT OF RIGHTS AND THE QUESTION OF BECOMING 4. Questioning the Subject of Human Rights, or How is a Becoming? Prologue I. How Did We Become Subjects of the Subject? II. The Human Rights of an Alienated Subject and the Subject of Alienating Human Rights III. The Ways of Becoming PART IV BEYOND HUMAN RIGHTS: TOWARDS AN AN-ARCHIC JURISPRUDENCE 5. Deleuze’s Jurisprudence: Is there Phronesis Beyond Human Rights? Prologue I. Which Jurisprudence? – A Multiplicity of Meanings II. A Deleuzian Jurisprudence: Restoring the phronesis and ethos of ius 6. Apodosis: Towards an An-archic Jurisprudence Prologue I. Institutions against the Law II. ‘It is a nomos Very Different from the “Law”’ III. (In)Conclusions