plato simulacrum

8/12/2019 plato simulacrum

1/13

Plato and the SimulacrumAuthor(s): Gilles Deleuze and Rosalind KraussSource: October, Vol. 27 (Winter, 1983), pp. 45-56Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778495.

Accessed: 25/02/2014 19:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:54:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/778495?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/778495?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress


2/13

Plato and the Simulacrum*

GILLES DELEUZEtranslatedby ROSALIND KRAUSSWhat is meant by the overthrow fPlatonism ? Nietzsche thus definesthe taskof his philosophy,or moregenerally, he task of thephilosophyofthefuture.The phrase seems to mean abolishing the world of essences and theworld ofappearances. Such a projectwould not,however,be Nietzsche'sown.The double objectionto essences and appearance goes back to Hegel, and fur-therstill,to Kant. It is unlikelythat Nietzsche would have meant the samething.Further, hisway offormulatinghe overthrowhas the drawbackofbe-ing abstract; it leaves the motivation forPlatonism obscure. To overthrowPlatonism should, on the contrary,mean bringingthis motivation to light,tracking t down- as Plato hunts down the Sophist.In verygeneralterms, he motive for hetheory f deas is to be sought nthe direction fa willto select,to sortout. It is a matter fdrawingdifferences,ofdistinguishing etweenthe thing tself nd its mages, theoriginaland thecopy, the model and the simulacrum.But are all theseexpressionsequal? ThePlatonicprojectemergesonly fwe refer ack to the method ofdivision,for hismethod s not one dialecticalprocedureamong others. t mastersall thepowerof the dialectic so as to fuse it with anotherpower and thus to represent hewhole system.One could initially ay thatit consistsofdividinga genus intoopposingspecies in orderto place thethingunderinvestigationwithin he cor-rect species: thus the process of continuous specification n the search foradefinition fthe angler'sart. But this s onlythe superficial spect of the divi-sion, its ironicaspect. If one takesthisaspect seriously,Aristotle's bjectionisclearly applicable; division s a bad and illegitimate yllogism,because it lacksa middleterm hatcould, for xample, lead us to conclude thatanglingbelongsto the arts of acquisition and of acquisitionby capture, and so forth.The real goal ofdivisionmust be soughtelsewhere. In the Statesmannefinds n initial definition: hestatesman s theshepherdofmen. But all sortsof* Platon et le Simulacre is an excerptfromLogiqueduSensbyGilles Deleuze to be translatedand published by Columbia UniversityPress.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

46 OCTOBER

rivals thedoctor,themerchant, he aborer come forward o say, I am theshepherdofmen. In thePhaedrust is a matterofdefiningmadness, and moreprecisely,of distinguishingwell-foundedmadness, or true love. There, too,many rush forward o claim, I am thepossessed, I am the over. Division isnot at all concerned,then,to divide a genus intospecies, but more fundamen-tallywith selectionfrom mong lines ofsuccession,distinguishing etweentheclaimants,distinguishinghepure from he impure,the authenticfrom he in-authentic.Hence therepeated metaphorwhich ikensdivisionto thetesting orgold. But Platonism is the Odysseyfphilosophy.The Platonic dialectic s notadialecticof contradictionnor ofcontrariety, ut one ofrivalryamphisbetesis)-a dialecticof rivalsor claimants. Division's essence appears notin breadth inthe determination f the species of a genus- but in depth in the selection ofthe lineage: the sorting ut ofclaims, thedistinguishing f true claimant fromfalse.To accomplish this, Plato proceeds once again by means of irony. For,when division arrives at this actual task of selection, everything ccurs asthoughthe task has been abandoned and mythhas taken over. Thus, in thePhaedrus, he mythof the circulation of souls seems to interrupt he effort fdivision; so, in theStatesman,oes themyth farchaic times. Such is the secondtrapofdivision,the second irony, hisevasion, thisappearance ofevasion or ofrenunciation.For themythreally nterrupts othing.On thecontrary,t s anintegrating lementofdivision tself. t is theproperty fdivisiontotranscendthedualityofmyth nd ofdialectic and to oin, internally, hepowerofdialec-tic with thatofmyth.The myth,with tsconstantly ircularstructure,s reallythe narrativeoffoundation. t allows the construction fa model accordingtowhichdifferentlaimants can be judged. In effect,hatwhich mustbe foundedis always a claim. It is the claimant who appeals to foundation,and it is onthebasis of his appeal that his claim is seen to be well or poorlyfounded,notfounded.Thus in thePhaedrushemyth f circulationrevealswhat souls, priorto their ncarnation,could see of Ideas, therebygivingus a selective criterionbywhichwell-foundedmadness, or true ove, belongsto those souls who haveseen much and thushave many dormant but revivablememories;while sen-sual souls, forgetfulnd narrowofvision, are denounced as falseclaimants. Itis the same thing n theStatesman. he circularmyth hows that thedefinitionof the statesmanas shepherdofmen literallyfits nly the archaic god. Butfromit, a criterionof selection emerges according to which differentmenwithin the City share unequally in the mythicalmodel. In short,an electivesharing correspondsto the matterof the selectivemethod.To share is, at best, to have secondhand. From this arises the famousNeo-Platonic triad: the unsharable, the shared, the sharer.One could just aswell say: the foundation,theobject of theclaim, theclaimant; the father, hedaughter,and thefianc6.The foundationpossesses something irsthand,llow-



4/13


5/13

48 OCTOBER

otherthephantasmaticimulacrasemblances).' We can thus better definethewhole of the Platonic motive it is a matter of choosing claimants, ofdistinguishing he good from he false copies, or even more, the always well-founded copies from the simulacra, ever corrupted by dissemblance. It is aquestionof nsuring hetriumph f thecopies over thesimulacra,ofrepressingthesimulacra,ofkeepingthemchained in thedepths,ofpreventing hem fromrisingto the surfaceand insinuating hemselveseverywhere.The greatmanifest uality the dea and the mage- is thereonlyfor hispurpose: toguaranteethe atentdistinction etween the twotypesof mages,togive a concrete criterion.For, ifthe copies or icons are good images, well-founded ones, it is because they are endowed with resemblance. Butresemblancemust not be understood as an externalcorrespondence.It pro-ceeds less from ne thing o anotherthanfrom thing o an Idea, sinceit s theIdea that comprises the relations and proportionsthat constituteinternalessence. Interior nd spiritual,resemblance is the measure of a claim. A copytrulyresemblessomethingonlyto the extent thatit resemblesthe Idea ofthething.The claimantonlyconforms o theobject insofar s itis modeled (inter-nallyand spiritually) n the dea. Itmerits quality forexample thequalityofjustness) only insofar as it is foundedon essence (justice). In short, t is thesuperior dentity f theIdea thatgroundsthegood claim of thecopies, ground-ing it on an internal or derived resemblance. Let us now consider the othertypeof image, the simulacra. Their claim- to the object, the quality, and soforth--ismade frombelow, by means of an aggression, an insinuation, asubversion, against the father and without passing through the Idea.2Groundless claim, coveringover the dissemblance of an internal mbalance.If we say of the simulacrum that it is a copy of a copy, an endlesslydegraded icon, an infinitely lackened resemblance, we miss the essentialpoint: the difference n nature between simulacrum and copy, the aspectthroughwhichtheyform he two halves ofa division. The copyis an image en-dowed withresemblance, the simulacrum is an image withoutresemblance.The catechism,so fully nspiredbyPlatonism,has familiarizedus withthisno-tion. God made man in His own image and to resembleHim, butthrough in,man has lost the resemblancewhile retaining he image. Having lost a moralexistencein orderto enter into an aestheticone, we have become simulacra.1. Sophist, 36b, 264c.2. Analyzingthe relation betweenwriting nd logos, Jacques Derrida finds hisveryfigure fPlatonism: the father f ogos, logos itself,writing.Writing s a simulacrum, a falseclaimant, in-sofaras ittriesto capture logos throughviolence and trickery, r even to supplantitwithoutgo-ing through he father.See La Pharmacie de Platon, Tel Quel,no. 32, pp. 12ff. nd no. 33, pp.38ff. Translated into English by Barbara Johnson inJacques Derrida, Dissemination,hicagoUniversityofChicago Press, 1981, pp. 61-171). The same figure s to be found n theStatesman:the Good as father f the aw, the aw itself, heconstitutions.Good constitutions re copies, buttheybecome simulacra from he momenttheyviolate or usurp the aw, in escape from heGood.



6/13

Plato andthe imulacrum 49

The remark of the catechismhas the advantage of stressingthe daemoniccharacterof the simulacrum. Doubtlessly it stillproduces an effectf resem-blance; but that s a generaleffect,whollyexternal,and produced by entirelydifferentmeans from hose thatare at workin the model. The simulacrum sconstructedaround a disparity,a difference; t interiorizes dissimilitude.That iswhywe can no longereven define twithregardtothemodel at work ncopies- the modeloftheSame fromwhich the resemblanceof thecopyderives.Ifthesimulacrum tillhas a model, it s anotherone, a model oftheOther fromwhich follows n interiorizeddissimilarity.3Take thegrandPlatonic trinity: ser, producer, mitator. ftheuser is atthetop of thehierarchyt is because he udges theresults,makinguse of a trueknowledgehich s thatofthemodel,of the dea. Copies can be said tobe imita-tions to theextent hattheyreproducethemodel; since, however,this mitationis noetic,spiritual, nd internal, t is a trueproductionguidedbythe relationsand proportions hatconstitute ssence. There is always a productive perationin thegood copyand, corresponding o thisoperation,a correctudgment,fnotknowledge. Thus we see that imitation s determined as having a pejorativemeaningonlyto theextent hat t is nothingbut a simulation,or that the termapplies tonothingbutthe simulacrumand designatesthe effectf resemblanceonlyin an externaland unproductiveway, obtainedby trick r subversion. nthatcase, not even correct pinionis atwork,buta sortof ronicencounter hatreplaces the modalityof understandingby an engagementoutside ofknowl-edge and opinion.4Plato specifies heway in which thisunproductive ffectsobtained. The simulacrum implies great dimensions, depths, and distanceswhichthe observercannotdominate. It is because he cannot master themthathe has an impression f resemblance.The simulacrum ncludeswithin tself hedifferentialoint ofview, and the spectator s made part of the simulacrum,which is transformednd deformed ccordingto his pointofview.5 In short,foldedwithinthe simulacrumthere is a process of going mad, a process oflimitlessness, s in the Philebuswhere the more and the less always lead to afurther oint, a constantdevelopment,a gradual processof subversionofthedepths,an adept avoidance of theequivalent, the imit,theSame, or theLike:always simultaneouslymore and less, but neverequal. To impose a limit onthisdevelopment, oorder t to sameness, to make itresemblant and, for hat3. The Other is, indeed, not onlya defect hataffectsmages; it, itself, ppears as a possiblemodel as against the good model of the Same. See Theaetetus,76e, Timaeus,28b.4. See Republic,X, 602a; and Sophist, 68a.5. X. Audouard has clearlydemonstratedthisaspect: simulacra are those constructions hatinclude the angle oftheobserver,in orderthat the illusionbe produced at theverypointwherethe observeris located . . . It is not the statusofnonbeing that is stressed,but thisslightdevia-tion,thisslightdodge in thereal image, that s tiedto thepointof view occupied bytheobserver,and whichmakes itpossible to construct he simulacrum, workof the Sophist Le Simulacre,Cahiers our 'analyse, o. 3).



7/13

50 OCTOBER

part which mightremain rebellious, to repress it as deeply as possible, toconfine it within a cave in the bottom of the ocean - such is the goal asPlatonism strivesfor the triumphoficons over simulacra.Platonismthus groundsthe entiredomain thatphilosophyrecognizesasitsown: the domain ofrepresentation illedby iconic copies definednotby anextrinsic elationtoan object,but ratherbyan intrinsic elationto themodel orground. The Platonic model is Sameness, in the sense that Plato speaks ofJusticeas nothing ther han ustness, or ofCourage as courageousness,and soforth- the abstractdetermination f thefoundationbeingthatwhichpossessesat firsthand. he Platonic copy is the Like- theclaimantwho receives at oneremove. To thepure identity f themodel or theoriginalthere orresponds x-emplarysimilitude,to the pure resemblance of the copy therecorrespondsasimilitude alled imitative.But for ll that,one cannot say thatPlatonismcon-tinues todevelop thispowerofrepresentation or tself. t is content ostake outthe territory,which is to say to ground it, to select it, to exclude from teverything hat threatens to confuse its boundaries. But the deploymentofrepresentation s well-founded and limited,as finiterepresentation, s moresurely heprojectofAristotle:representation rossesand covers thewholefieldthatextends from hehighestgenerato theminutest pecies, and themethodofdivision at thispointtakeson a traditional spectofspecificationhat thad notpossessedunderPlato. We can fix thirdmomentwhen,underthe nfluence fChristianity,there is no longer the attemptonly to found representation,rendering t possible, nor to specifyor determine it as finite,but rathertorender it infinite, o assert its claim to the limitless,to have it conquer theinfinitelyreatas well as the infinitelymall, openingonto a Being thatexistsbeyond the highestgenera and onto a particularity hat resides withintheminutest pecies.Upon thisendeavor,Leibniz and Hegel left hestampoftheirgenius. Butifwe have notdone withthe ssue ofrepresentation,t sbecause thedouble re-quirement of the Same and the Like persists. Quite simply, the Samediscovered an unconditionedprinciple capable of setting up its rule withininfinity: amely,sufficienteason; and theLike found a conditionbymeans ofwhichitcould be applied to theunlimited:namely,convergenceorcontinuity.In effect, notionas rich as theLeibnizian compossibilitymeans that,monadsbeing assimilated to unique points, each series thatconvergesaround one ofthese points is extended in other series, converging around other points.Anotherworldbegins in thevicinity fthepoints,causing the seriesthusob-tained tobranch off.We thussee how Leibniz excludesdivergencebymeans ofdistributingt in the domains of the noncompossible, preserving he maxi-mum convergenceor continuity s a criterion fthebestpossibleworld,whichis to say, of the real world. (Leibniz presents other possible worlds asclaimants hat are lesswell-founded.)The same is trueforHegel inthat thas



8/13

Platoand the imulacrum 51

recentlybeen shown to what extentthe circlesof the dialectic turn around asinglecenter,depend on a singlecenter.6Whether t's themono-centering fcircles or the convergenceof series, philosophydoes not leave the matter ofrepresentation ehindwhen itgoes offnquest of the nfinite. ts intoxication sonly feigned. Philosophycontinues to pursue thesame goal, Iconology,adapt-ing it to the speculativedemands ofChristianitythe infinitelymall and theinfinitelyarge). And always there s the selection from mong claimants,theexclusion of the eccentric and divergent,and this in the name of a superiorfinality, n essential reality,or even a meaning to history.

Aesthetics suffersfrom an agonizing dualism. On the one hand itdesignatesa theory ffeeling s the form fpossible experience;on theother, tmarksout a theory f art as the reflection freal experience. In orderfor hesetwomeaningsto oin, the conditionsofexperience n generalmust become theconditionsof real experience. The work of artwould, for tspart, reallythenappear as experimentation.We know, forexample, that certain iterarypro-cedures otherarts have equivalents) allow one to tell several stories t the sametime.This is certainly he essential characterofthe modernwork of art. It is inno way a questionofdifferentointsof view on a singlestory nderstoodas thesame, for hesepointsremainsubjectto a rule ofconvergence. t is, on thecon-trary, matter f differentnd divergentnarratives, s thoughto each pointofview therecorrespondedan absolutelydistinct andscape. There is of course aunityof the divergent eries, as divergent,but it is a continuallydecenteredchaos, itself t one with the GreatWork. This unformed haos, thegreat etterof Finnegan'sWake, s not just any chaos, it is the power of affirmation,hepower of affirmingll heterogeneousseries, it complicates within tself llseries. (Whence Joyce's nterest n Bruno as the theoretician fcomplication.)Withinthese basic seriesa sort of internaleverberations produced, a resonancethat induces a forcedmovementhat overflowsthe series themselves. Thecharacteristics re all those of the simulacrumwhen it breaks its chains andrises to the surface. t thenasserts tsphantasmaticpower, itsrepressedpower.As we recall,Freud alreadyshowedhowfantasy esultsfrom t least twoseries,the infantile nd thepostpubescent.The affectiveharge connectedwithfan-tasyis explained by the internalresonanceof which the simulacra are thecar-riers, and the impressionof death, of rupturedor dismembered life, is ex-6. Louis AlthusserwritesofHegel: Acirclef ircles,onsciousnessasonly ne entre, hichsolelydetermines it; it would need circles withanother entre han tself-decentredircles-for it to beaffected t its centreby theireffectivity,n short for ts essence to be over-determinedby them(ForMarx, trans. Ben Brewster,New York, Vintage Books, 1970, p. 102).



9/13

52 OCTOBER

plained by theamplitudeofthecompulsionthatproducesthem.This, then,istheway the conditionsof real experienceand the structure f the work ofartreunite:thedivergenceofseries,thedecentering fcircles,the constitution f achaos that comprises them, the internal reverberationand amplifiedmove-ment, the aggressivenessof the simulacra.7Systems of this sort--formedby the placing in contact of disparateelementsor heterogeneousseries--are in one sense extremely ommon. Theyare signal-sign systems. The signal is a structure which is divided intodifferences f potential, assuring the communication of disparate elements.The sign s thatwhich flashesbetweentwobordering evels,between two com-municating series. It seems that all phenomena, insofar as theirground islocated in dissymmetry,n difference,n constitutivenequality,correspondtothese conditions: all physical systemsare signals, all qualities are signs. It istruenonethelessthat the seriesthatborder themremain exterior;and by thesame tokenthe conditionsoftheirreproduction lso remain exterior o otherphenomena. In order to speak of the simulacrum it is necessary that theirdifference e enclosed. here is undoubtedly always a resemblance betweenseriesthatreverberate.But that s notthe issue; theissue, rather, s the statusor positionof this resemblance. Let us take the two formulations: onlythatwhich s alikediffers, nd onlydifferencesre alike. Here are tworeadingsoftheworld in that one bids us to thinkofdifferencen terms ofsimilarity, r aprevious identity,while on the contrary,the other invites us to think ofsimilarity r even identity s theproductofa basic disparity.The first ne is anexact definition ftheworld as icon. The second, against thefirst, efines heworldofsimulacra. It positstheworlditself s phantasm. Now, from hepointof view of this second formulation, t makes little differencewhether theoriginal disparity,on whichthe simulacrum is constructed, s big or little; tcouldhappenthatthebasic serieshave onlyslight ifferences.t isenough,how-ever,that theconstituting isparity e judged in and of tself, otprejudgedonthe basis ofany previous dentity, nd that thave dispars s its unit ofmeasureand communication.Then resemblancecould onlybe thoughtofas theprod-uct of this nternal difference.t matters ittlethatthe systembe in a stateofgreatexternal resemblance and small internaldifference,r thereverse,fromthe moment that resemblance is produced on the curve and thatdifference,small or large, continuallyoccupies the center ofthe system husdecentered.Hence, to overthrowPlatonism means: to raise up simulacra, to asserttheirrights ver icons or copies. The problemno longerconcerns thedistinc-tion Essence/Appearanceor Model/Copy. This whole distinction perates in7. On themodern work of art, and particularlyonJoyce, see Umberto Eco, L'Oeuvre uverte,Paris, Seuil. In the preface to his novel Cosmos,Gombrowicz offers rofoundcomments on theconstitution fdivergent eries and on theirmanner ofreverberation nd communication withinthe heart of chaos.



10/13

Plato and the imulacrum 53

the world of representation.The goal is the subversionof this world, thetwilight f the dols. The simulacrum snotdegraded copy,rather t containsapositive powerwhichnegatesboth riginalndcopy, othmodel ndreproduction.fthe at least twodivergent eries nteriorizedn thesimulacrum,neither an beassignedas originalor as copy.8 t doesn't evenworkto invokethemodel of theOther, because no model resists the vertigo of the simulacrum. And theprivilegedpointof view has no more existence handoes theobjectheld in com-mon by all pointsofview. There is no possible hierarchy:neither econd, northird. . . Resemblance continues,but it is produced as the external effect fthe simulacrum nsofar s this s constructed n thedivergent eriesand makesthemresonate. Identitypersists,but it is produced as the aw thatcomplicatesall series,causing themto returnwithin ach one as the course ofcompulsion.In the overthrowof Platonism it is resemblance that speaks of interiorizeddifference, nd identity,of Difference as a primary power. Similarityandresemblancenow have as theiressence onlythe condition ofbeing simulated,that is, of expressingthe operationof the simulacrum. Selection is no longerpossible. The nonhierarchicalwork is a condensation of coexistences, asimultaneity f events. It is thetriumph f thefalseclaimant. He simulatesfa-ther,claimant,and fiance, n a superimposition f masks. But the falseclaim-ant cannot be said to be false n relationto a supposedlytruemodel, anymorethan simulationcan be termedan appearance, an illusion. Simulation is thephantasm itself,that is, the effect f the operations of the simulacrum asmachinery,Dionysiac machine. It is a matterof the falseas power,Pseudos,nNietzsche's sense when he speaks of the highest power of the false. Thesimulacrum, n risingto thesurface,causes the Same and theLike, themodeland thecopy,tofallunderthepowerof the false phantasm). It renders heno-tion ofhierarchympossible n relationto the idea of the order ofparticipation,thefixityfdistribution, nd the determination f value. It setsup theworldofnomadic distributionsnd consecratedanarchy.Far from eing a new founda-tion, it swallows up all foundations, t assures a universal collapse, but as apositive and joyous event, as de-founding effondement):9Behind everycaveS. .here s, and mustnecessarilybe, a stilldeeper cave: an ampler, stranger,richerworldbeyondthesurface, n abyssbehindeverybottom,beneathevery'foundation. '10o ow could Socrates recognizehimself n these caves thatareno longerhis own? With what thread,since the thread is lost? How could hegetout and how could he still tellhimself part from he Sophist?8. See Blanchot, Le Rire des dieux, La Nouvelle evuefranCaise,uly1965: A universewherethe image ceases to be second in relation to a model, where imposture pretendsto thetruth, r,finally,where there s no moreoriginal,but an eternalsparklewhere, in theglitter fdetourandreturn,the absence of the origin is dispersed p. 103).9. Translator's note: effondements a neologistic play on efondrementr collapse.10. BeyondGood andEvil, ?289.



11/13

54 OCTOBER

That the Same and theLike mightbe simulated does not mean thattheywould be appearances or illusions. Simulationdesignatesthepowertoproducean effect.ut this s notonlyin thecausal sense, because causality,without heintervention fothermeanings,would remaincompletelyhypothetical nd in-determinate. t is in the sense of sign, resultingfrom heprocess ofsignals.And it is in thesense of costume, or even better,ofmasks, expressing pro-cess ofdisguisewhere,behind each maskthere s still nother. ... Simulationconstructedn thisway is not separable from heEternalReturn,because it isin the Eternal Return thatthe overthrow fthe icons or the subversionof theworld of representation s decided. There, everything appens as if a latentcontent blocked a manifestcontent. The manifestcontent of the EternalReturn could be determined n accordance withPlatonismin general. It thenrepresents he manner in whichchaos is organized throughthe action of thedemiurge,and accordingto the model ofthe Idea that mposes on itsimilarityand resemblance. In this sense the Eternal Return is theprocessofgoingmadmastered, uni-centered,determined to copy the eternal. And this is how itappears in the foundationmyth. t installsthecopywithin he mage, itsubor-dinates the image to resemblance. But this manifest content, far fromrepresentinghe truth f theEternalReturn,acts as the markof a mythical seand survivalwithin an ideologythat can no longer supportthattruth nd towhich its secret s lost. It is fittinghatwe recallhow muchtheGreek spirit ngeneral,and Platonism nparticular, s repelledbytheEternalReturntaken nits atentmeaning. We mustgrantNietzsche's claim that theEternalReturnis his own vertiginousdea, fedonlybyesotericDionysiac sourcesunknowntoor repressedby Platonism. Nietzsche's own rare explanations remain at thelevel ofthemanifest ontent:the EternalReturnas theSame whichcauses theLike to come back. But how are we to overlookthedisproportion etweenthisflattruism,thatgoes no further han a generalizedorder of the seasons, andZarathustra'semotion?Or better, hemanifest tatement hatexistsonlytobedrylyrefutedby Zarathustra? Once addressing the dwarf,another time hisanimals, Zarathustrareproachesthemwiththetransformationntoplatitudeofthatwhich s particularly rofound,withmakinga tiredrefrain fthatwhichis quite anothermusic,withchangingintocircularsimplicity hatwhichis es-peciallytortuous. n theEternalReturnone mustpass byway ofthemanifestcontent,but only to reach the latent content ocated a thousand feetbelow(cavern behind all caverns . . .). Then, what seemed to Plato nothingbut asterileeffect, eveals in itself he inalterability f masks, the impassibility fsigns.

11. On this reticence of the Greeks, and most notably Plato, with regard to the EternalReturn, see Charles Mugler, Deux thkmese la cosmologierecque, aris, Klincksieck, 1953.



12/13

Platoandthe imulacrum 55

The secretof the Eternal Return is thatit in no way expressesan orderthat it opposes to chaos, and masters it. On the contrary, t is nothingbutchaos, thepowerofaffirminghaos. There is a pointat whichJoyceis Nietz-schian - when he shows that the vicusofrecirculationannot affect r spin achaosmos. For the coherence of representation, he Eternal Return substi-tutes omething ntirely ifferent,ts own c[ha]o-errance.For betweentheEter-nal Return and the simulacrumthere s a connectionso profoundthat one isonly comprehendedby the other. What returns are the divergentseries, asdivergent:that is, each one insofar as it displaces its difference rom all theothers;and all, insofar s theycomplicatetheirdifferencen the chaos withoutbeginningor end. The circleof the Eternal Return is a continuallyeccentriccirclewith constantly ecentered enter. Klossowski is rightn sayingthattheEternalReturn is a simulacrumof doctrine. t is indeedBeing,butonlywhenbeing is for ts part simulacral.'2 The simulacrum functions n such a waythat resemblance s necessarilyretrojected ntothebase series,and an identityis necessarilyprojectedonto the forcedmovement.The EternalReturn is thenindeed theSame and theLike, butonly nsofar s they re simulated,productsofsimulation,of thefunctioningfthe simulacrum will to power). It is in thissense thatit overturnsrepresentation nd destroys cons. It does not presup-pose the Same and theLike, but rather, etsup that which differss theonlySame and makes of unlikenesstheonlyresemblance. It is thesingle phantasmforall the simulacra (the being ofall thebeings). It is thepower ofaffirmingdivergence and decentering. It makes of them the objects of a higheraffirmation.t is under thepowerof thefalseclaimant thateverythings forcedto pass and repass. Further,not everythings allowed to return.The Return isstill selective,establishingdifferences, ut not at all in Plato's way. What itchooses are all theprocessesthatoppose choice. What is excluded, what is notallowed oreturn, re thosethings hatpresupposethe Same and theLike, thosethingsthat pretendto correctdivergence,to recenterthe circles or to makeorderofchaos, to providea model and make a copy. As long as historyasts,Platonismwilloccur onlyonce, and Socrates fallsunder theknife.Because theSame and the Like become simple illusions,preciselyfrom he momenttheycease to be feigned.Modernity is defined by the power of the simulacrum. It behoovesphilosophynot to be modern at any price, nor yetto be timeless,but to ex-tricatefrommodernitysomethingthat Nietzsche called the untimely,hichbelongsto modernity, utwhich must also be turnedagainst it - in favor,hope, of a futuretime. It is not in the great forestsnor on pathways that12. Pierre Klossowski, Un sifuneste isir,Paris, Gallimard, p. 226. And pp. 216-218, whereKlossowski comments on the words ofJoyfulWisdom, ?361: The pleasure in simulation, ex-ploding as power, repressingthe so-called character,submerging t oftento the pointof extinc-tion .



13/13

56 OCTOBER

philosophy s elaborated,but in thecities and streets,ncludingeven theirmostfactitiousspects. The untimely s established, in relationto the most distantpast, in the overthrowof Platonism, and in relation to the present, in thesimulacrumconceived as the matterof this criticalmodernity, nd in relationto the future, n thefantasy f the Eternal Return as belief n the future.Theartificial nd the simulacrumare not the same thing.They are even opposed.The factitiouss always a copyof a copy,which must be pushed to he ointwhereitchangestsnaturend turnsnto simulacrumthemomentofPop Art). It is at thecore ofmodernity, t thepointwhere modernism ettles tsaccounts, thatthefactitious nd the simulacrumstand in oppositionas twomodes ofdestructionmay: the two nihilisms. For between the destruction which conserves andperpetuatesthe established orderofrepresentations,models, and copies, andthedestruction fmodels and copies whichsetsup a creativechaos, there s agreatdifference; hat chaos, which sets in motion the simulacra and raises aphantasm, is the most innocent ofall destructions, hat ofPlatonism.I would ike othank nnette ichelsonorher ssistancenthe reparationf his ransla-tion. trans.

plato simulacrum

Documents

Transcript of plato simulacrum