The Psychotic Animal: From A to Ž
A Links entry from Thursday, August 2, 2007The Psychotic Animal: From A to Ž
An und für sich analyzes Agamben and Zizek’s conceptions of the primordial void of pure potentiality.
Perhaps Agamben’s enigmatic vision (taken from a medieval Bible) of the messianic humans who have animal heads but nonetheless sit down at a table to eat is a way of getting at what Zizek might mean by the possibility of a big Other that would be somehow free of the obscene superego supplement.
Jason
…What audience is this for? Honestly man.
Bryan Klausmeyer
What audience?
Jason
People reading it, on the howler I mean. Who else but you understands a tenth of what’s being said in those articles? And its not even like there’s a gap in ideas, where anyone could study the point and begin to understand it…the article’s are never in lay-man’s terms, so its a language/definition gap. That’s unlearnable if you don’t have alot of other materials.
Like read that line about “willing nothingess (as opposed to nothingness)”. Oh thanks, glad they cleared that one up, otherwise none of their perceptions of the “vanishing mediator” would have made sense. That sure would have been embarrasing.
Bryan Klausmeyer
A quick Google search:
A vanishing mediator is a concept which somehow negotiates and settles - hence mediating - the transition between two opposed concepts and thereafter disappears. Zizek draws attention to the fact that a vanishing mediator is produced by an assymetry of content and form.
More info here: http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm
It’s not that counter-intuitive of a concept. If you read in the link, it has to do with an alteration in content through negation of negation.
So, to translate the article: the “vanishing mediator” is, once we go beyond original void of freedom (pure potentiality), we have “willing nothingness.” Why is this a vanishing mediator? Because even further beyond it, we have pure nothingness, but nothingness is negated by the will for non-nothingness. The sublation of nothingness with non-nothingness retains the will to desire, but instead, we end up desiring nothingness itself.
I agree that their reading isn’t immediately intuitive, but if you’re curious enough to want to understand it, even without a library within the vicinity, it’s possible to find most of the answers on the Internet.
Jason
Generally I’ll give the benefit of doubt to something I’m reading…but after reading what you just wrote 6 times, and mind you…really sitting and thinking about it, I’m still left with what I’ve principally started with reading: empty words. And it sort of pisses me off.
All of these things are works of self-masturbation, they are based on nothing, and therefore produce nothing. They just replicate and continue what came before them, big words and little meaning. The concept of saying more with less is lost on this entire community, and I’m beginning to believe that it amounts to little more than a group of “crazy” people talking amongst one another. I imagine similar conversations going on in mental asylums across the country, only with Napoleon and the CIA as opposed to “the Other”, mediators, and german uber-terms.
“Negation of negation”? Why the hell would one phrase that as such? Why not use the actual word for it instead of using double negatives, transitive diction, and just general double-speak. “The void of freedom”, that tells me nothing Bryan, why is it a void? How does one dictate what is willing nothingness and pure nothingness?
These statements are like math problems with too many variables, and yet nothing is defined. Someone thinks of a concept, let’s say, the loss of childhood naivety, and then, deciding that merely saying that would be philosophically uncouth, douche-bags it up a notch and labels the concept as “the puerile ebullience”. Ya, that has the right ring of pretentiousness to it.
I’d like to think I’m not completely fucking retarded, so I should be able to tell if someone is saying something, or saying nothing. And at the end of the day, where does any of this leave us? Its like someone raped the Socratic method given the sheer lack of definitive answers, the “to be continueds”. And why, because it wasn’t based on anything tangible to begin with. You and I are as smart and have as much foresight as half of these people, its just that they’ve stumbled upon thesauruses and have a lot more free time.
Bryan Klausmeyer
To claim that philosophy is self-masturbation that produces nothing… well… as you pointed out in the last paragraph of your post, philosophy is the basis for science. What you want is a philosophy where concepts go hand-in-hand with common sense. The fact is, the field and terminology have—shockingly, no doubt!—become far more complex since the time of Socrates (what was that, oh, nearly 2500 years ago…).
“Negation of negation”? Why the hell would one phrase that as such? Why not use the actual word for it instead of using double negatives, transitive diction, and just general double-speak. “The void of freedom”, that tells me nothing Bryan, why is it a void? How does one dictate what is willing nothingness and pure nothingness?
So, even though the answer to this could easily have been found using a Google search, negation of negation does not mean the original Thing (or Notion, etc.), hence why it’s in italics. The Hegelian negation of negation is part of the Hegelian dialectic and relates to content and form.
Let’s use the example from that link I posted earlier (and I’ll try not to use terminology, even though I think it makes it more confusing without it): imagine the process from feudalism to Protestantism to bourgeois capitalism:
The first negation is of the content, and because of this, Protestantism is still linked to feudalism because feudalism still determines the content of Protestantism through this very act of negation.
The second negation completes the “negation of negation” by moving from negation of content to negation of form (meaning, what is purely formal in nature). When we eliminate the form, however, we encounter a paradox. By opposing itself, the Thing actually strengthens itself (to quote the link, “In the case of Protestantism, the *universalization of religious attitudes* ultimately led to its being sidelined as a matter of *private contemplation*.”)
So what’s the lesson from this? Negation of negation doesn’t mean just going back to the original concept of the Thing. The entire point is that negation of negation produces something wholly different. The first negation isn’t enough because it’s still within the opposed Thing’s “sphere of influence,” so to speak. Imagine a vendiagram: [A] [B] [C]. [B] negates [A], but instead of just [B], we have [A [B]]. If [C] negates the *form* of [B], we’re left with just [C] (at least in the way I mentally picture it).
If you want to continue arguing that terms like these are still empty and self-masturbation, maybe you could have a fun debate with yourself. It’d be about as intellectually rewarding as a “SCIENCE OR RELIGION!?!?!” debate. However, if you want further clarification of certain terms (perhaps ones that don’t have explanations via Google), I can probably help.
Adam Kotsko
Jason pointed out this quote from my post: “willing nothingess (as opposed to nothingness)”.
That was a typo on my part. It should read “willing nothingness (as opposed to nothing).” I don’t know if that helps you.
In answer to another post: I wrote the post for the regular readers of AUFS, who are already very familiar with Agamben and Zizek. If you read the post and experienced it as a personal insult, then the post wasn’t intended for you — not because you don’t know Agamben and Zizek (not everyone has time to study everything), but because of your attitude.
Adam Kotsko
I went back and looked, and I actually had that quotation right the first time.
Jason
I still think that my point is valid.
I think it’s a copout to say that the field of philosophy has become more complex. Firstly, a basis behind the progression of any science is to make it more accessible, ie, the formerly intangible more tangible. Secondly, how can principles/notions based on extrapolation and speculation become more complex? Philosophy is based on individual conjectures, its very definition is something beyond concrete principles. It’s thinking really hard, plain and simple. When it is used for any purpose beyond just thinking about something, then it becomes something different. Example: when one uses philosophy to analyze the patterns by which people live their lives, or to speculate on how a person will react to something, it becomes, gasp, psychology.
So why would something intangible, something that each individual person has their own way of defining, become more complex? Just because a few people who consider themselves “philosophers” at one point decided to use a completely inaccessible means of labeling to validate the very lack of science behind their work, doesn’t mean that it, as a whole, philosophy has become something advanced. Think about it in terms of function; I can understand mathematics being advanced, but one can apply it to fields such as mechanical engineering and such. How does one apply philosophy? More so, how does one even define who a philosopher is? Are they just deeper thinkers than the rest of us? And how do you even assign a standard to philosophy? It’s a completely un-provable, unique/individualized field.
I suppose my biggest qualm is just the un-provable nature behind philosophy; it isn’t based on anything, each person possesses their own rationale, and it doesn’t work to solve anything. How is it any different than the discussions between religious people that you scoff at, or discussions about comic book characters and who is stronger? None leave us with anything, and all are based on something that is, and was, never there.
In conclusion, big fucking deal. You may respond if you’d like, but I’ve said everything I care to say.
Jason
Damn, in response to Adam’s post, which I hadn’t seen before I posted, nothing I’ve said was directed at the form of the article, or its intended purpose.
I’m speaking only toward the application of philosophy, and, originally, its relevance and intended audience on this site. I was insulted by nothing, and hope you aren’t insulted by anything I’ve said.
Secondly, Bryan has evidently edited something in his last post…actually, he’s edited alot. I’ll take it as further illustration of the difficulty in conveying whatever the hell was meant to be said in the first place. Again, that isn’t anything on him, he’s more than capable, it’s just philosophy as a whole being, as aforementioned, something intangible.
Mark Cullen
I think I agree with Jason… to a certain extent. There is absolutely no reason that Philosophers couldn’t write in plain english, since translation is a big aspect of Philosophy 101 courses, and if the students can do it, so can the thinkers. But the benefits of not making your meaning clear far outweigh the benefits of writing clearly.
When a thinker writes in philosophic jargon…
He does not have to spend time developing clear language and useful terminology.
He is praised for his complexity.
The meaning behind his work is difficult to understand and harder to argue against.
People can read their own arguments into his ambiguity, so they’re more likely to agree with him.
I’m willing to bet that because this (bad) style of writing has become so prominent many thinkers are influcenced to write their arguments in the same way. After reading the work of their idols, they believe bad syntax and bad style are essential parts of philosophical writing.
That being said, if you actually took the time to dig through the embarrassing swamp of language you would probably find some substantial and interesting ideas. They would also probably be fairly difficult to grasp, but the idea that their complexity cannot be easily expressed in english is ridiculous.
Bryan Klausmeyer
Actually, I was just trying to make it easier for you to understand. I’ve only just started reading Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, so most of what I understand of Hegel is purely derivative of Zizek’s work.
The point about a field of study being more and more accessible is not true. As an example from personal experience, I found Calc III much harder to understand than Calc I or II. Fields become more complex as they attempt to fully account for the totality of consciousness/experience, etc.
Also, all philosophers get their ideas from previous philosophers, just as all mathematicians get their ideas from previous mathematicians, and so on. If the field were completely individualistic/non-substantial, as you’re attempting to assert, there would be absolutely no progress in it.
As Adam said, I think your problem is one of disposition. If you find philosophy so repugnant, there’s no point in me even trying to explain some concepts.
Mark: I’m not saying that their ideas can’t be expressed in simple English. What I’m saying is that, for a concept like negation of negation, it’s much easier to give a thorough explanation of it (as is ordinarily done in a philosophical work), and then label it with a name, and the same goes for something like différance or in-der-welt-sein. This way, the ordinary modal logic notion of negation of negation (the original thing) stands apart from Hegel’s notion of negation of negation. This also means you can just use the term instead of having to repeat the entire concept in its totality ad nauseum.
Moreover, much of the complexity involved with philosophy is as a result of translation. Though Hegel is hard to understand to begin with, the fact that it’s translated from German to English doesn’t help (and the same goes for Derrida, Heidegger, etc.). I find Zizek to be much more readable, for instance, because he writes in English in his own words, as opposed to writing in Slovenian (or whatever), and having a translator interpret and translate his text.
Jason
It took Mark one comment to convey what I was garbling to say in five. I subscribe completely to his viewpoint.
Also, you misunderstood my comment on accessibility. Clearing Calc III would be more dificult to digest than I or II, but look back to what I was saying with mechanical engineering; though the mathematics increases in difficulty and therefore becomes less accessible to lay-people, it can still be APPLIED to something, and in fact must be very detailed and dense (ie what translates to “difficult to understand”)in order to apply to such things as electrical engineering or other mechanics. The same cannot be said for philosophy; there may very well be concepts that are difficult to understand, but you don’t need equally difficult terms to define them, that would just defeat the purpose. Likewise, I find it doubtful that there are certain philosophical buzzwords that are just beyond some people (as is often the case for higher level math). The “Other” might be confusing at first, but once defined, anyone could understand it.
Jason
God damn it Bryan post a second comment instead of editing in text!!!
Bryan Klausmeyer
though the mathematics increases in difficulty and therefore becomes less accessible to lay-people, it can still be APPLIED to something, and in fact must be very detailed and dense (ie what translates to “difficult to understand”)in order to apply to such things as electrical engineering or other mechanics.
Actually, the same can be said of philosophy. I think the topic of existence is far more complex than electrical engineering (both as a field of study and in application to how we conceive of existence).
there may very well be concepts that are difficult to understand, but you don’t need equally difficult terms to define them
This sentence seems contradictory. How is the term “negation of negation” misleading or complex-for-the-sake-of-being-complex? It says exactly what it means, without saying what it doesn’t mean. How else would one call what that idea represents? The entire point is to be *precise* with words/concepts.
Likewise, I find it doubtful that there are certain philosophical buzzwords that are just beyond some people (as is often the case for higher level math).
No one is saying they aren’t. But good job defending a point never in contention. The entire point of my last couple of posts was that the terms aren’t beyond anybody, you just have to be open and willing to try and understand them, rather than saying, “Wow, this sure seems complicated, so maybe it’s just meaningless because philosophy should just be common-sense truisms!”
If this is your notion of philosophy, then I think this discussion is a waste of both of our time.
Bryan Klausmeyer
I found this quote by Nietzsche, which seems worth posting in relation to the topic at hand:
In the midst of an age of ‘work’, that is to say, of hurry, of indecent and perspiring haste, which wants to ‘get everything done’ at once, including every old or new book: -this art [philosophy] does not so easily get anything done, it teaches to read well, that is to say, to read slowly, deeply, looking cautiously before and aft, with reservations, with doors left open, with delicate eyes and fingers. (Dawn, Preface)
Jason
That is exactly what I said. Thank you for placing everything I’ve said into a single sentence. God bless you.
If you’ll look real carefully (and philosophize real hard) at the “buzzword” comment that I made, you’ll see it has to do with your earlier comment regarding similarities between philosophy and math. I was attempting to disprove that assertion. What you’re doing quoting it, and how you’re responding, I have no idea. You’ve either completely misconstrued the subject matter it was addressing, or you’re using it to “prove” a completely unrelated point. The first is just stupid, the second is more akin to a Bill O’Rielly-esque argument.
This is more a conversation in person, typing is way too dificult to convey, and I suspect niether of us is grasping where the other is coming from.
Bryan Klausmeyer
Also:
The “Other” might be confusing at first, but once defined, anyone could understand it.
As I said in my previous post(s), in all philosophical works, words that represent concepts are not just vaguely put out there and left for anyone to interpret. Perhaps this is a source of confusion given that I don’t think you’ve read any philosophical works (maybe I’m wrong, but if not, I think it calls into question your “critique” as well…). All terms are defined in them. As Adam pointed out, however, AUFS does not define these terms because its readership is familiar with the concepts/philosophers being discussed.
It’d be preposterous for a philosopher (say, Heidegger) to mention the term “in-der-welt-sein” and expect someone to try and reason something out of it with no definition. If that’s your impression of what’s going on, it’s seriously misinformed.
Jason
None of that related to your Nietzsche comment.
Bryan Klausmeyer
[quote comment=”527”]
That is exactly what I said. Thank you for placing everything I’ve said into a single sentence. God bless you.
If you’ll look real carefully (and philosophize real hard) at the “buzzword” comment that I made, you’ll see it has to do with your earlier comment regarding similarities between philosophy and math. I was attempting to disprove that assertion. What you’re doing quoting it, and how you’re responding, I have no idea. You’ve either completely misconstrued the subject matter it was addressing, or you’re using it to “prove” a completely unrelated point. The first is just stupid, the second is more akin to a Bill O’Rielly-esque argument.
This is more a conversation in person, typing is way too dificult to convey, and I suspect niether of us is grasping where the other is coming from.
[/quote]No, I misread what you wrote. But see my above post as it relates to how these concepts/words are defined within the philosophical works themselves.
Bryan Klausmeyer
[quote comment=”529”]
None of that related to your Nietzsche comment.
[/quote]No, my Nietzsche comment was in regards to this topic as a whole (the readability of philosophy).
Bryan Klausmeyer
Wait.. I didn’t misread what you wrote. My entire point was that no one was debating that these concepts weren’t capable of being understood by anyone. I was agreeing with you because I was never disagreeing with you on that in the first place, even though you tried to make it seem as if that wasn’t the case.
Jason
No, I meant none of what I said related to the Nietzsche comment.
Can we quit while we’re ahead?
Bryan Klausmeyer
Fine by me.
Bryan Klausmeyer
Though we should let sleeping dogs lie, I did some searching and found a pretty provocative article written by Hegel in response to his critics’ claims (notably Schopenhauer) that he was an obscurantist:
Bryan Klausmeyer
bryklaus@umich.edu
25 Comments