The essay by Paolo Bettineschi is opposed to a thought that consumes its own presuppositions,
and argues for the benefit of the testimony of a truth to which thought tends as the stable end of
its fulfillment. My comment praises the emphasis on the emancipatory and non-oppressive
force of a vertical truth, excessive and further rather than horizontal and immanent. I article
then a Lacanian interpretation of anguish, which is not connected to the absence of an object
and therefore to the processes of symbolic work. On the contrary, anguish is read, through
Kierkegaardian lenses, as the announcement of a gap in the symbolic enclosure and as the irruption
of an exceptional moment in the normal syntax of the law. Along this path, the need
for stability of presence is undermined by a new life that arises from the loss of fullness.
