L’individu est abordé, et même défini, par des théories sous-tendues de postulats philosophiques construisant le monde : l’individu est théorisé. Une vision plus ou moins spécifique de cet individu est proposée par chaque théorisation. Celui-ci peut être considéré seul, individuellement, ou en relation avec les autres, collectivement. La psychanalyse tend à s’orienter selon la subjectivité de l’individualité, produisant son Sujet. Le Droit tend à s’orienter selon l’objectivité de la collectivité, produisant son sujet. Pour l’individu, la prise dans ces édifices théoriques est fatalement enclavante. Nous focalisons sur le terme jouissance, champ lacanien pour la psychanalyse et prérogative de la propriété pour le Droit. Foulant la terre lacanienne, la jouissance est impossibilité là où dans l’enceinte juridique elle est possibilité. Très certainement infructueuse pour le Sujet mais tout spécialement fructueuse pour le sujet. Très abstraite, elle est insoumise et abusive chez Lacan, à s’y méprendre. Très concrète, elle est soumise et conditionnée dans le Code civil, à s’y comptabiliser financièrement. Dans un effort paradoxal de fixation sur des jouissances dissemblables bien qu’essentiellement philosophiquement décrétées, c’est le champ lacanien qui se superpose aux prérogatives de la propriété juridique. Ce faisant, les turbulences de la psychopathologie de la postmodernité quotidienne s’éclairent, l’attitude de la psychanalyse vis-à-vis de son Sujet se révèle, l’absolue relativité de l’abord de l’individu lorsqu’assujetti à une théorie se rappelle. Ceci devant la constatation d’un abus radicalement hors la propriété juridique, à situer davantage du côté de la psychanalyse qu’à déposer sur les épaules de son culpabilisé Sujet, atteint du malaise dans la jouissance. / The individual is broached, and even defined, by theories underpinned by world-building philosophical assumptions: he is theorized. A more or less specific view of this individual is proposed by each theorization. He can be considered alone, individually, or in relation to others, collectively. Psychoanalysis tends to be oriented towards the subjectivity of individuality, producing its Subject. The Law tends to be oriented towards the objectivity of the community, producing its subject. For the individual, being caught in theses theoretical structures is inevitably ensnaring. We will focus on the term of jouissance, Lacanian field for psychoanalysis, and prerogative of property for the Law. Treading the Lacanian grounds, jouissance is impossibility, while she is possibility wherein the juridical precinct; most certainly unfruitful for the Subject, but especially fruitful for the subject; very abstruse, she is unruly and abusive for Lacan, uncannily; very practical, she is obedient and conditioned in the french Civil Code, for financial profitability. In a paradoxical effort to fixate on dissimilar, although essentially philosophically decreed, jouissances, the Lacanian field superimposes itself onto the juridical property prerogatives. Thus, the turbulences of the psychopathology of everyday postmodernity are enlightened, the attitude of psychoanalysis vis-à-vis its Subject reveals itself, the absolute relativity at the outset of the individual when liable to a theory is recalled. This being brought before the finding of an abuse, radically apart from juridical property, to place more towards psychoanalysis than to lay upon the shoulders of its guilty Subject, affected by discontent in jouissance.

Questo studio intende sondare la potenzialità speculativa di una filosofia squisitamente kojèviana che nasca dalla relazione originaria e originante tra il Desiderio e la Legge. Il privilegio ermeneutico accordato a questo plesso per un’indagine monografica dell’opera di Kojève si deve all’intuizione di un’unità fondamentale del suo pensiero. Si tratta di iniziare una ricerca sulla relazione analizzata alla luce della nuova ontologia che Kojève cercava di pensare. Noi sappiamo che Kojève è passato alla storia come l’«interprete di Hegel», come il doctor subtilis dei leggendari Seminari sulla Fenomenologia dello Spirito. L’Introduction à la lecture de Hegel è stato il Libro-Evento che ha lasciato il segno nel clima della Parigi del bagliore intellettuale degli anni Trenta e dei suoi insigni protagonisti, ma non fu che la punta dell’iceberg della produzione scientifica del nostro autore. La ricostruzione dell’opera omnia di Kojève, pertanto, è stata la base a partire dalla quale è divenuto possibile questo lavoro. A partire dagli scritti giovanili viene svelata la matrice scientifica e, allo stesso tempo, speculativa della riflessione kojèviana mediante la rilettura del Journal d’un philosophe (1920-1923) e dell’Idée du déterminisme dans la physique classique et dans la physique moderne (1932). La domanda sottesa, formulata in parte dallo stesso Kojève, è la seguente : è possibile associare la rivoluzione quantistica in fisica alla rivoluzione freudiana considerando che la determinazione relativa della realtà fisica implica e presuppone l’esistenza dell’inconscio psichico ? Le osservazioni preliminari sulla scienza sono state funzionali a fornire una risposta affermativa a tale questione e a presentare la genealogia della tesi principale di questo lavoro : il soggetto kojèviano non è solamente, à la Butler, un soggetto di desiderio ; ma, piuttosto, un soggetto di desiderio e legge. / This work seeks to explore the potential of the philosophy of Kojève, which has its offspring in the relation between Desire and Law. This plexus is regarded as the hermeneutic theme of the work of Kojève, based on the intuition of a fundamental unity within his thought. This study aims at starting a research about relationship, in the light of Kojève’s nouvelle ontologie. Kojève is regarded as «the interpreter» of Hegel and the doctor subtilis of the legendary Seminars on the Phenomenology of Spirit. The Introduction à la lecture de Hegel was the work that revolutionised the scholars in Paris in the 1930s, but it was only the tip of the iceberg of the author’s scientific production. Therefore, the reconstruction of the opera omnia of Kojève is the base of this work, which could not have been possible without it. The scientific and speculative roots of Kojève’s thought are evident since the early works of the author , and particularly the Journal d’un philosophe (1920-1923) and l’idée du déterminisme dans la physique classique et dans la physique moderne (1932). The main question, partly formulated by Kojève himself, is the following : can we associate the quantic revolution in physics to the revolution of psychoanalysis, given that the relative determination of physic reality implies the existence of the psychological unconscious ? The preliminary observations on science have been fundamental in order to give a positive answer to this question. They also represent the foundations of this research. According to Kojève, the subject is not simply, as Butler would hold, a subject of desire ; but a subject of desire and law.