Dolores Lussich

Gianni Vattimo claims that any reading of Nietzsche presupposes an interpretation of its two central concepts: Eternal Recurrence and Übermensch (Superman). In this work, we intend to show how some interpretations of these concepts fail to seize the complexity of Nietzsche´s definitions. First, we will discuss Heidegger´s interpretation. In his Nietzsche, the author presents the Eternal Recurrence as an inevitable repetition. The Übermensch is doomed to an existence trapped in the takeover of life by technology. We will read the same paragraph as Heidegger ?On Redemption? but with opposite conclusions. Our argument is that the figure of the handicapped ciphers the answer of Zarathustra regarding Eternal Recurrence. In their fragility resides their own strength. Thus, the Eternal Recurrence is understood as a transition from negativity to affirmation. In this sense, we will also discuss Deleuze, regarding his idea of Will to Power as pure affirmation. In our reading, neither positivity nor negativity is transcended but maintained as forces in tension. Keywords: Nietzsche-Eternal Recurrence-Will to PowerFil: Lussich, Dolores María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

In this work, we will focus on how the Argentinian process of state debt restructuring provides ideas to attend the social matter in the context of globalized and financial capitalism. On September ninth 2014, with 124 votes in favour, 41 abstentions, and only 11 votes against, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that establishes the need for a multilateral legal framework for the restructuring of sovereign debts. The legal framework was created and voted the 10th September 2015 with 136 affirmative votes out of 183. This new legal framework, that resists austerity and neoliberal solutions, responds to the impulse of a Latin American country. Our hypothesis is that the philosophical modern notions of democracy and sovereignty presented by some international organizations like the United Nations, need to be not only criticized, but also redefined and valued. The formality of a certain neo-liberal heritage seems to have emptied the meaning from these international organizations that are now trapped in the crisis of their liberal foundations. We will follow some of Jacques Derrida's reflections on the matter while signalling some interesting echoes between his critics and those of the solutions proposed by Argentina in the United Nations regarding the same matter. By doing this, our objective is to collaborate in the line of thought that not only distrusts the modern and classic political thought, but also understands that some problematic notions like sovereignty should be redefined in some contexts, so as to function like a response to the unlimited power of international corporations and financial capitalism.

Gianni Vattimo claims that any reading of Nietzsche implies an interpretation of its two central concepts: Eternal Recurrence and Übermensch (superman). In this work, we intend to show how some interpretations of these concepts fail to seize the complexity of Nietzsche's definitions. First, we will discuss Heidegger's interpretation. In his Nietzsche, the author presents the Eternal Recurrence as an inevitable repetition. The Übermensch is doomed to an existence trapped in the takeover of life by technology. To do this we will read the same paragraph as Heidegger –On Redemption– but with opposite conclusions. Our argument is that the figure of the handicapped ciphers the answer of Zarathustra regarding Eternal Recurrence. In their fragility resides their own strength. Thus, the Eternal Recurrence is understood as a transit from negativity to affirmation. In this sense, we will also discuss Deleuze, regarding his idea of Will to Power as pure affirmation. In our reading, neither positivity nor negativity is transcended but maintained as forces in tension.

En nuestro quehacer becario dedicamos mucho tiempo a la revisión bibliográfica y a la actualización teórica que nos permita ampliar unos marcos teóricos y nos provean más herramientas para analizar nuestros objetos de estudio. Pasamos varios meses revisando las referencias que se dicen obligadas, completamos fichas y tachamos nombres de autores/as que sí o sí creemos o nos han dicho que deben figurar en nuestro trabajo. Pero, cuando hablamos de investigación en torno a problemáticas vinculadas a los géneros y las sexualidades, muchas veces la falta de referencias regionales y locales se hace evidente. Los centros de producción de conocimiento más legitimados delimitan el camino de lo decible, de lo pensable y la perspectiva de lo observable. Y entonces nosotrxs-jóvenes investigadores situados en el sur-diremos sin repetir y sin soplar, que podemos analizar los fenómenos sociales, artísticos, culturales en torno a los géneros y sexualidades locales por haber leído a-por ejemplo-De Lauretis, Butler, Preciado, etc. Se plantea entonces la misma situación paradójica que constantemente observamos y discutimos entre becarixs: ¿puede la teoría producida en el Norte explicar y dar cuenta de la espesura de los fenómenos que suceden y estudiamos desde el Sur? ¿Qué lecturas complementarias nos pueden servir para actualizar las herramientas teóricas con las que trabajamos y así salirnos de la hegemonía de ciertas corrientes actuales para pensar los géneros y sexualidades? Y finalmente, ¿cómo producir conocimiento situado?