Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- zizek:zizek-a-o-que-e-um-acontecimento [28/01/2026 12:19] – mccastro
+++ zizek:zizek-a-o-que-e-um-acontecimento [28/01/2026 12:21] (current) – mccastro
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 //Excerto de ŽIŽEK, Slavoj. Acontecimento. Uma viagem filosófica através de um conceito. Tr. Carlos Alberto Medeiros. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2017. (epub)//
-<tabbox Carlos Alberto Medeiros>
 “UM TSUNAMI MATOU mais de 200 mil pessoas na Indonésia!” “Um paparazzo clicou a vagina de Britney Spears!” “Finalmente percebi que tenho de deixar tudo para trás e ajudá-lo!” “A brutal conquista militar sacudiu o país inteiro!” “O povo venceu! O ditador fugiu!” “Como é possível haver uma coisa tão bela quanto a última sonata para piano de Beethoven?”
@@ Line 22: / Line 21: @@
 Numa primeira abordagem, um acontecimento é, assim, o efeito que parece exceder suas causas – e o espaço de um acontecimento é aquele que é aberto pela brecha que separa o efeito das causas. Já com essa definição aproximada, vemo-nos no próprio cerne da filosofia, dado que a causalidade é um dos problemas básicos com que ela se confronta: todas as coisas estão conectadas com vínculos causais? Tudo que existe deve sustentar-se em razões suficientes? Ou será que existem coisas que, de alguma forma, acontecem a partir do nada? Como pode então a filosofia ajudar-nos a determinar o que é um acontecimento – uma ocorrência que não se sustenta em razões suficientes – e como ele é possível?
-<tabbox Original>
+{{tag>Zizek acontecimento}}
-‘A tsunami killed more than 200,000 people in Indonesia!’ ‘A paparazzo snapped Britney Spears’s vagina!’ ‘I finally realized I have to drop everything else and help him!’ ‘The brutal military takeover shattered the entire country!’ ‘The people have won! The dictator has run away!’ ‘How is something as beautiful as Beethoven’s last piano sonata even possible?’
-All these statements refer to that which at least some of us would consider an event – an amphibious notion with even more than fifty shades of grey. An ‘Event’ can refer to a devastating natural disaster or to the latest celebrity scandal, the triumph of the people or a brutal political change, an intense experience of a work of art or an intimate decision. Given all these variations, there is no other way to introduce order into the conundrum of definition than to take a risk, board the train and start our journey with an approximate definition of event.
-Agatha Christie’s 4.50 from Paddington opens in the middle of a journey on a train from Scotland to London, where Elspeth McGillicuddy, on the way to visit her old friend Jane Marple, sees a woman being strangled in the compartment of a passing train (the 4.50 from Paddington). It all happens very fast and her vision is blurred, so the police don’t take Elspeth’s report seriously as there is no evidence of wrongdoing; only Miss Marple believes her story and starts to investigate. This is an event at its purest and most minimal: something shocking, out of joint that appears to happen all of a sudden and interrupts the usual flow of things; something that emerges seemingly out of nowhere, without discernible causes, an appearance without solid being as its foundation.
-There is, by definition, something ‘miraculous’ in an event, from the miracles of our daily lives to those of the most sublime spheres, including that of the divine. The evental nature of Christianity arises from the fact that to be a Christian requires a belief in a singular event – the death and resurrection of Christ. Perhaps even more fundamental is the circular relationship between belief and its reasons: I cannot say that I believe in Christ because I was convinced by the reasons for belief; it is only when I believe that I can understand the reasons for belief. The same circular relation holds for love: I do not fall in love for precise reasons (her lips, her smile …) – it is because I already love her that her lips, etc. attract me. This is why love, too, is evental. It is a manifestation of a circular structure in which the evental effect retroactively determines its causes or reasons.1 And the same holds for a political event like the prolonged protests on Tahrir Square in Cairo which toppled the Mubarak regime: one can easily explain the protests as the result of specific deadlocks in Egyptian society (unemployed educated youth with no clear prospects, etc.), but somehow, none of them can really account for the synergetic energy that gave birth to what went on.
-In the same way, the rise of a new art form is an event. Let us take the example of film noir. In his detailed analysis, Marc Vernet2 demonstrates that all the main features that constitute the common definition of film noir (chiaroscuro lighting, askew camera angles, the paranoiac universe of the hard-boiled novel with corruption elevated to a cosmic metaphysical feature embodied in the femme fatale) were already present in Hollywood films. However, the enigma that remains is the mysterious efficiency and persistence of the notion of noir: the more Vernet is right at the level of facts, the more he offers historical causes, the more enigmatic and inexplicable becomes the extraordinary strength and longevity of this ‘illusory’ notion of noir – the notion that has haunted our imagination for decades.
-At first approach, an event is thus the effect that seems to exceed its causes – and the space of an event is that which opens up by the gap that separates an effect from its causes. Already with this approximate definition, we find ourselves at the very heart of philosophy, since causality is one of the basic problems philosophy deals with: are all things connected with causal links? Does everything that exists have to be grounded in sufficient reasons? Or are there things that somehow happen out of nowhere? How, then, can philosophy help us to determine what an event – an occurrence not grounded in sufficient reasons – is and how it is possible?
-</tabbox>