To Be Continued?...
Philosophy and Psychoanalysis Today

Part III
15–16 April 2025

Live Session (Zoom)

Boštjan Nedoh
Marisa Žele
Holden M. Rasmussen
Amanda Holmes
Aleš Bunta
Alenka Zupančič
Alejandro Cerda-Rueda
Arka Chattopadhyay
Lorenzo Chiesa
Mladen Dolar
Justin Clemens
Alexi Kukuljevic
Peter Klepec
Stephen Overy
Tadej Troha
Sigi Jöttkandt
Richard Boothby


Part II

16–18 April 2024

Holden M. Rasmussen
Marisa Žele
Aleš Mendiževec
Voranc Kumar
Alejandro Cerda-Rueda
Arka Chattopadhyay
Boštjan Nedoh
Tadej Troha
Adrian Johnston
Mladen Dolar
Henrik Jøker Bjerre
Aleš Bunta
Adam Potts
Alenka Zupančič
Lorenzo Chiesa
Joan Copjec
Emily Laurent-Monaghan
Moritz Herrmann
Arsalan Reihanzadeh
Paris Lavidis
Nadia Bou Ali
Peter Klepec
Mohamed Tal
Frank Ruda
Ray Brassier


Part I
15–17 November 2023

Holden M. Rasmussen
Emily Laurent-Monaghan
Moritz Herrmann
Paris Lavidis
Vesna Liponik
Arsalan Reihanzadeh
Adrian Johnston
Jelica Šumič Riha
Tadej Troha
Boštjan Nedoh
Marisa Žele
Aleš Bunta
Peter Klepec
Alenka Zupančič
Lorenzo Chiesa


To Be Continued? ... 
Info
  • We can certainly say that the dialogue between philosophy and psychoanalysis, however prolix, has so far proved very difficult, ever since the latter’s inception. Is there such thing as a philosophy-psychoanalysis relationship? Or has it always been only empty speech? In that case, should it be continued?
Read more →

Boštjan Nedoh (ZRC SAZU)



A Theft without a Thief: Anamorphosis of Surplus Value 


In his book Stealing the Mona Lisa, Darian Leader reports on the surprising consequences of the theft of the Mona Lisa painting from Louvre in 1911: the theft significantly increased the number of visitors to the Louvre, who did not visit the painting itself, but the empty space left behind by the missing masterpiece. For Leader, the theft of the Mona Lisa made itself visible by showing the split between the void (das Ding) and the image that occupies this empty space. This view is entirely consistent with Lacan’s idea that the theft can only take place within the symbolic, insofar as it presupposes the difference between the symbol and the empty place of its inscription. As he argued in the Seminar on ‘The Purloined Letter’, only the symbolic can be absent from its place, not the real. The real always drags its own place behind it. In contrast to the theft of the Mona Lisa, however, Dupin’s theft of the letter was effective precisely to the extent that it remained invisible: Dupin left the duplicate of the letter in the place of the stolen letter itself. The duplicate of the letter made the theft invisible. This case raises the more general question of how structural thefts—thefts without thieves—are possible, such as the thefts of surplus labour time in the wage system or (homologically) of the subject's gaze in anamorphosis. Why are we so obsessed with visible theft, but remain indifferent to invisible (structural) theft, even though we know it well?