To keep it as brief as possible: Great first half, where Critchley builds a theory of ethics and the ethical subject by synthesizing Kant, Badiou, Levinas, Freud, and others. The notion of humor as a tool for sublimation is a good and interesting idea, and the book is sure to be revisited in the future for this articulation, as well as the entirety of its philosophy of ethics. The "turn to ethics" is a relevant and well-timed move as well at the dawn of postmodernism. This is followed by a terri...

An anarchist framework with ethical demands , cannot be beat! Although,,, it ultimately takes an act of faith to buy into the ethical demand of the face to face encounter

Interesting, but not without its problems.E.g. See one of Badiou's criticisms (‘poison in the flower’) that suggests Critchley's ‘dividual’ (a divided subject) is founded on ‘the good’, that ‘the good’ is somehow an ontological prerequisite for Critchley's demand.http://slought.org/content/11385/

Love this guy. Deftly handles a string of complicated theory to formulate an insightful perspective on ethics in modern societies. If you are a Shakespeare nerd and you like thinking about morality and money, check out his essay "Universal Shylockery: Money and Morality in the Merchant of Venice." I believe it was co-authorered with Tom McCarthy.

I could barely bring myself to finish this book. It's not that Critchley is a bad writer, nor even a 'bad' philosopher. It's just that this whole book, which is supposedly a statement of his major philosophical framework, is hopelessly narrow and tied down in the niceties of Continental tradition and to the fleeting particularities of the early 2000s. The image I couldn't shake while reading this book is that Critchley is a perfectly competent baker using extremely inappropriate ingredients. He'...

"Despite Nietzschean claims about conscience culminating in self-hatred or Freudian claims about the cruelty of the super-ego, I am proposing an ethics of discomfort, a hyperbolic ethics based on the internalization of an unfulfillable ethical demand." pg. 11"care of the self as a practice of freedom." pg.41"Responsibility for the other person never consists in our assuming the responsibility which is his or hers. Responsibility does not here imply reciprocity. On the contrary, the other person

I enjoyed reading most parts of this book, especially the section on humour, and it's clear and pleasantly written. But to be honest the "neo-anarchism" section felt a bit tacked-on and not very well thought-out and definitely not well-researched. He kinda just took Graeber to be representative of contemporary anarchism and then wildly simplified his work to a description of modern protest (he only cites Fragments and one essay from the New Left Review) and then tried to paint him as a classic A...

First, he sketches out a philosophy of ethics that borrows great hunks from Lacan and Levinas, two dudes who did not see eye to eye. This ethics of infinite duty is only bearable, according to Critchley, if you can laugh at yourself. That bit is probably the most interesting, actually. Because this ethics demands political action, he seeks a form of political action that would fit with it, settles on anarchism, but thinks contemporary movements place to much emphasis on consensus .... instead we...

Two short passages from Infinitely Demanding:We approach ethical issues in a spirit of Diogenean cynicism rather than free commitment, a spirit in which, as Yeats writes, the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. The question, then, is how might we fill the best with passionate intensity?As such, my approach might appear to be too much of an overtly philosophical, quasi-idealist construction. This is in part a problem of professional deformation and in part

En este libro Simon Critchley presenta su interpretación del horizonte ético dentro de la política contemporánea, presenta su visión del nihilismo pasivo y activo y como ambos se encuentran presentes en el panorama político.Explora las ideas de Nietzsche, Levinas, Badiou, Marcuse, Habermas, Mouffe y Marx haciendo una fuerte critica al neo-liberalismo con algunos casos interesantes como el de México en el gobierno de Carlos Salinas, el de Australia en los años setenta y en Estados Unidos durante

Critchley is known for his critical appropriation of Emmanuel Levinas's philosophy. Critchley articulates and defends a kind of levinasian anarchism in Infinitely Demanding. Those more familiar with analytic moral theory should approach Critchley's views as offering an ethics of self-formation based on the encounter with "the Other." It's about cultivating a particular ethical attitude or form of life.

Kind of interesting and problematic. Žižek wrote this interesting and problematic response: "The lesson here is that the truly subversive thing is not to insist on ‘infinite’ demands we know those in power cannot fulfil. Since they know that we know it, such an ‘infinitely demanding’ attitude presents no problem for those in power: ‘So wonderful that, with your critical demands, you remind us what kind of world we would all like to live in. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where we hav...

I was with this book until the final section on anarchic action. Critchley didn't make clear how individuals coming together for group action differs from the development of party-based liberal democracy. Anarchic utopianism often forgets that people argue frequently, sometimes violently. Aside from that grumble I enjoyed this book deeply.

Clear, accessible and quite formal for continental thought, Critchley gives a nice outline of his approach to politics and ethics. While I don't feel it's that much new for those who know his work, I enjoyed the way how the ideas were outlined and some of the intuitions were brought into a more explicit sense. I think the weakest is the latter part of the book formulating a more explicit stand on neo-anarchist politics through an interesting, though not sure if that-well situated (in a topologic...

Pg. 125: "One might say that contemporary anarchism is about responsibility."Good book

I need to re-read this in conjunction with Lacan's seminar on the ethics of psychoanalysis. This is good stuff--I really like how he addresses the problem of anarchism's tradition of ignoring/failing to consider the"infinite demand" of the other rather than the importance of the autonomous self.

What do I like about this book? Well, for one, it's probably one of the few philosophical contributions to the global justice movement, or the “movement of movements” of my generation. I also think that it fits nicely alongside the work of Rebecca Solnit and David Graeber in reflecting on the “new anarchism” (as it's been called). Indeed, Critchley uses Graeber's definition of anarchism (in distinction from Marxism) as a building block in his own theory, by emphasizing the the ethics of politica...

my only experience with critchley before this text was his 2013 book "stay illusion: the hamlet doctrine". i liked it --it was provocative, contemporary, and effective. maybe a bit too much psychoanalysis, but i liked how critchley was able to encapsulate his ideas. he has a clarity and grace uncharacteristic of academic philosophy. "infinitely demanding" is intellectually provocative, urgently contemporary, and logically effective. critchley integrates so many disparate thinkers into his respon...

I don't generally seek philosophy for reading, but I read this for my conflict management class and LOVED it. Critchley offers a timely discussion of the future of the state and political organization, urging a shift from the tragic hero frame to a comic frame. Sounds goofy, but his treatise explaining humor's function, constructs and value are spot on. If you want to really consider the future of change, this book is a great thought generator.

Critchley writes well and I found parts of his argument thought-provoking and insightful. Yet his philosophy doesn't really stick with me. Even though he has the ambition to inspire a more ethical kind of politics, this book doesn't motivate me to act, doesn't even give me an idea about how to act, and ultimately fails to draw a connection to the bigger picture.