call thought the nexus that constitutes the forms of life in an inseparable context as (). Only in can one overcome the distinction between and The “thinking” zoe bios. central claim is this: if living and intending and apprehending themselves are at stake “only each time in what I live and intend and apprehend only if, in other words, there is thought – – only then can a form of life become, in its own factness and thingsness, form-of-life, in which it is never possible to isolate something like naked life” (). Thinking is not individual “the exercise of an organ or a psychic faculty, but rather an experience… that has as its object the potential character of life and human intelligence” (). This idea of thinking turns on the Averroistic interpretation of the intellect,” i.e., of thought thinking itself, pure “active “a power of thinking”(). As his collection of essays indicates, a great deal of Agamben’s Potentialities affirmative biopolitics is dedicated to formulate the meaning of this power of thinking” “pure as the cipher of a happy life. In Agamben speaks of potentiality not in terms of Homo sacer, possibility but rather the effective modes of potentiality’s existence… it is necessary “logical that potentiality be able to pass over into actuality, that potentiality constitutively be the not (do or be), or, as Aristotle says, that potentiality be also im-potentiality”(). potentiality not to One of the main differences between Agamben and Negri with respect to the idea of a general or common intellect consists in their different analysis of (power) in its affirmative potenza sense: whereas Negri understands in Spinozist terms as a constituent power that potenza legal and political forms of legitimate domination, in Agamben denotes what potenza is best called a power, i.e., a kind of power that precedes the distinction between “destituent” constituent and constituted powers (). In Agamben assigns the paternity of this Homo sacer idea of potentiality to a wide array of figures and concepts, like the later Schelling, Nietzsche’s eternal return, Heidegger’s and lastly in the formula of Bartleby: Gelassenheit, “
call thought the nexus that constitutes the forms of life in an inseparable context as (). Only in “thinking” can one overcome the distinction between zoe and bios. The central claim is this: “only if living and intending and apprehending themselves are at stake each time in what I live and intend and apprehend – only if, in other words, there is thought – only then can a form of life become, in its own factness and thingsness, form-of-life, in which it is never possible to isolate something like naked life” (). Thinking is not “the individual exercise of an organ or a psychic faculty, but rather an experience… that has as its object the potential character of life and human intelligence” (). This idea of thinking turns on the Averroistic interpretation of the “active intellect,” i.e., of thought thinking itself, “a pure power of thinking”(). As his collection of essays Potentialities indicates, a great deal of Agamben’s affirmative biopolitics is dedicated to formulate the meaning of this “pure power of thinking” as the cipher of a happy life. In Homo sacer, Agamben speaks of potentiality not in terms of “logical possibility but rather the effective modes of potentiality’s existence… it is necessary that potentiality be able not to pass over into actuality, that potentiality constitutively be the potentiality not to (do or be), or, as Aristotle says, that potentiality be also im-potentiality”(). One of the main differences between Agamben and Negri with respect to the idea of a general or common intellect consists in their different analysis of potenza (power) in its affirmative sense: whereas Negri understands potenza in Spinozist terms as a constituent power that legal and political forms of legitimate domination, in Agamben potenza denotes what is best called a “destituent” power, i.e., a kind of power that precedes the distinction between constituent and constituted powers (). In Homo sacer Agamben assigns the paternity of this idea of potentiality to a wide array of figures and concepts, like the later Schelling, Nietzsche’s eternal return, Heidegger’s Gelassenheit, and lastly in the formula of Bartleby: “
vatter_community_and_subjectivity_in_italian_biopolitics_5.docx