Talk:Giorgio Agamben

message: Apologies to whoever wrote the original article. . .I tried to edit without changing too much of the original article.  I gave a summary of his comments on Aristotle, which I think are essential, but didn't go into the distinction between "zoe" and "bios".  I might come back and add that in, though--I think that what I wrote still needs many additions and revisions, and if I don't get a chance to do it soon, I welcome the contributions of anyone who will.  Also, I changed the last paragraph. . .I used to do Policy Debate, so I understand what the author was saying, but since most people are not acquainted with the jargon of that specific debate system, I tried to rephrase those comments in a way that would be understood by anyone interested in theory, not just people using theory for policy debate.Shakantala 17:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies & other notes 

message: Brief note: I just reverted the subcategory again. I changed "September 11, 2001" to "9-11" in keeping with Agamben's critique of the Bush administration's instrumentalizing the events as a permanent condition. Mabuse 16:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsection title you mean? Actually, I prefer September 11, 2001, as "9/11" is commonly used in the States, but that's it. Other parts of the world refer to it as September 11 - furthermore, if you remember well, there is also another September 11 to mourn, somewhere near Santiago... I also think it is important to correct a bit the article, as Agamben certainly is critical to the US response, but it musn't mislead the reader into thinking that it is only an "anti-American POV". In other words, his political criticism must be better related to his philosophical struggle, and it should be noted that when Agamben start talking about a "state of exception", he traces it to the First World War, not to September 11. If we don't do that, the reader will not correctly understand his criticisms, which is extended to all "democracies", which all have made a more than fair use of rule by decree. Lapaz 12:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it perhaps be an ironic linguistic parallel that the events of September 11, 2001, have been instrumentalised as the permenant condition (ie meaning) of the terms '9/11', even 'September 11'? I also dislike '9/11' as subsection title - to many outside the US this reads as 9th November. Kaele 11:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11 as a category

message: Just a simple thing, really. "State of exception" probably should not link to "state of emergency" as they're 2 completely different things, just as the book state of exception tries to show. Im just goint to blank out the hyperlink for now.
//I think this section could use page references / citations :))
"The political power over others acquired through the state of exception, places one government — or one form or branch of government — as all powerful, operating outside of the laws. During such times of extension of power, certain forms of knowledge shall be privileged and accepted as true and certain voices shall be heard as valued, while of course, many others are not. This oppressive distinction holds great importance in relation to the production of knowledge. The process of both acquiring knowledge, and suppressing certain knowledge, is a violent act within a time of crisis."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.203.10 (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: state of exception

message: Why a POV tag has been added?--Sum (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reason given for "POV disputed" 

message: Looking at that section it is written as if it were an essay attempting to refute Agamben's views. Inadequate referencing and inferences extended from small quotes make the neutrality questionable, along with the use of phrases such as "it should be evident" (which would be condemned in any philosophy essay, let alone encyclopaedic synopsis). Can someone please attribute full, specific critiques to specific authors in-text and 'neutralise' the tone to fix this issue?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.130.92 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Critiques of Agamben' POV tag 

message: Need some feedback regarding a change made on December 7, 2010 by a contributor ( Woland1234 ) who change the lead sentence of this article. Before Dec 7, 2010, the opening sentence states that Agamben is an "autonomist philosopher". It now reads that Agamben is a "political philosopher". Is this a good change? I added a footnote to the article just now. I mention that an earlier version of the wikipedia page indicates that he is an "autonomist philosopher" or was associated with this group. But I am not sure. Christian Roess (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the editing history of 'Woland1234,' it seems safe to assume that the edit he made here was not a thoroughly considered one. Undo it if in doubt. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agamben was never an autonomist as far as I am aware. He had not developed a strident political position prior to the elimination of the Autonomia movements during '78 by the Italian state. He was published with a number of autonomists in "Radical Thought in Italy" in 1996, but this represents an early move toward his more political works, rather than as a representation of his work in Italy to date. He is also critical of a number of the primary thinkers of what is now effectively post-auonomism, for instance, crits of Negri in Homo Sacer and The Kingdom and the Glory. 128.250.5.245 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Agamben has currently been publishing articles in Ill Will and was formerly somehow associated with Tiqqun, or, at least, highly influential to them.  Ill Will is more or less an insurrectionary anarchist magazine and Tiqqun, at least, were communization theorists.  Communization theorists, insurrectionary anarchists, and autonomists all kind of run in similar circles, but are distinct from one another.  My guess would be that Agamben is sympathetic towards that milieux without, per se, ascribing to it.  In the wayback, everyone from Endnotes to Yale Law students was willing to invoke his idea of "forms of life", in my opinion, without really having any conception as to what they particularly were, and, so, since any political designation is bound to be contingent upon that, until someone becomes capable of explaining just what a form of life is in a relatively clear and concise manner, this is just bound to be within a certain zone of indiscernibility. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Agamben an "autonomist philosopher"? Is he associated with "autonomism" in Italy? 

message: Although not quite fitting for an encyclopedia, this is a delightful stylistic morsel: "filled with design, white space and random dots".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.140 (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to with "sacred", but in regards to the sacer of homo sacer, even though the term designates someone who exists outside of the law, there's kind of this complex etymology that he gives in Homo Sacer wherein, though abandoned by law, most specifically in re the suspension of their right to life, homo sacer are still "sacred" in the sense that they live at the mercy of the gods. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: Agamben writes in Homo Sacer: "Not simple natural life, but life exposed to death (bare life or sacred life) is the originary political element" (55). This seems to contradict the explanation in this article that bare life is the same thing as zoe. He says that bare life is not simple natural life--i.e., not zoe--but life exposed to death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughboy1234 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  bare life and zoe  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Giorgio Agamben. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326173917/http://www.egs.edu:80/faculty/giorgio-agamben/biography to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/biography/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040824073830/http://www.germanlawjournal.com:80/article.php?id=437 to http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=437
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615053052/http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_2/dasilva.htm to http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_2/dasilva.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527171420/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/nei-campi-dei-senza-nome/ to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/nei-campi-dei-senza-nome/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527171506/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/genes-et-la-peste/ to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/genes-et-la-peste/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326173917/http://www.egs.edu:80/faculty/giorgio-agamben/biography to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/biography/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040824073830/http://www.germanlawjournal.com:80/article.php?id=437 to http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=437
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060106141818/http://multitudes.samizdat.net:80/article.php3?id_article=1135 to http://multitudes.samizdat.net/article.php3?id_article=1135
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527171921/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/letat-dexception/ to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/letat-dexception/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Giorgio Agamben. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527171921/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/letat-dexception/ to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/letat-dexception/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016154035/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/philosophical-archaeology to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/philosophical-archaeology/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222160428/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/introductory-note-on-the-concept-of-democracy/ to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/introductory-note-on-the-concept-of-democracy/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150630151049/https://eurocontinentalism.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/the-latin-empire-should-strike-back-giorgio-agamben/ to https://eurocontinentalism.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/the-latin-empire-should-strike-back-giorgio-agamben/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The section on Agamben's Work is too long. It appears to result from summaries of individual books (rather than secondary sources). We cannot summarize all of Agamben's work in this way, it needs to be written in a style consistent with encyclopedic overview. The subsections on 9/11 and Covid are the right length but what comes prior needs to be condensed, removed, or rewritten using secondary sources. I will make some of these changes myself over time unless others object here.  RDavid27 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work section too long