336. Hidden things and selves
Žižek departs from Kant’s philosophy, in his first
Critique, of Pure Reason, and modifies it, using views from Hegel and Lacan.
While Kant proposed that we cannot know reality (‘the Thing’) as it is ‘in
itself’, Žižek follows Hegels view that this ‘Thing’ is ‘empty’ or
‘non-existent’. This transforms an epistemological void (we don’t know it) into
an ontological one (it does not exist).
Let me note, in passing, that I disagree. Here, I
remain a Kantian: we don’t know, but we cannot but believe that ‘it’ exists,
even if in some objectively unknowable way. This is important for my
evolutionary argument, stated in this blog, that thought has developed from
interaction with the world, and therefore in some way, for some prolonged time,
must have had some adequacy concerning the world, or else it would not have
survived.
While I am primarily a nominalist, some vestige of
realism remains. I can clarify this with the multiple causality of Aristotle
that I have used several times in this blog. Concepts and meanings in language
are shaped according to the final cause of interest, the formal cause of mental
construction, the conditional cause of context, the exemplary cause of mimicry
and culture, but also the material cause of reality. From reality we mentally
craft perceptions and ideas that suit us, in interaction with others in a
culture.
It is difficult to accept that things in the world,
selves, and social order do not really exist, are not some substance, do not
have determinate, consistent, stable properties. Žižek claims that for all
three, people adopt an illusory notion of a phantasized, thing, called
‘objet-a’ in the terminology of Lacan, and we lustfully cling to it, in
‘jouissance’.
I am tempted to connect this notion of the ‘objet-a’ with
my notion of an ‘object bias’, according to which we conceptualize according to
a metaphor of objects in time and space.
Kant postulated that we cannot know the self. Žižek
agrees with this, and so do I. The self is not accessible to itself. We cannot
step outside ourselves to inspect ourselves. The self cannot know itself, in
the same way that the eye cannot see itself. We do not have ideas, as things we
can look at, handle, and turn around to inspect. We do not have ideas, we are them.
The self is not an objective, outside bystander in the world, as implied in
Descartes’ notion of the self, but involved, immersed in it, constituted from
interaction with it.
This idea has been adopted more widely. According to
Heidegger, the self is not a being in the sense of an object but in the sense
of a verb, being constituted by acting in the world. Deleuze and Guattari also
saw thought as a force field in which we participate. Thought is not in us, we
live in thought. ‘The self is not an objectifiable thing that could be the
substantial bearer of the origin of meaning’ (Vande Veire, p. 49).
Here also, Žižek goes further, over the top, in my
view, as he so often does, and posits that the self is ‘empty’ or non-existent.
Here, he follows David Hume’s denial that there is a self with any identifiable
identity. The self is just a flux of perceptions and thoughts.
I disagree with that. Not being able to know or
observe the self does not mean that there is no self, or that we cannot
experience it in any way. Earlier in this blog, I argued that there is some
coherence in the body, in the buzz of neuronal and endocrinal activity that
regulate body and mind. Without that the body would not survive. While we
cannot see how it all ties together, and cannot survey it, we do experience it.
We cannot see the eye, but we experience seeing.
Here also, Žižek postulates that we grasp a mythical,
non-existent self as an entity, an ‘objet-a’. I agree. We have an urge towards
an identity, even if we can only get it as a make-belief. It is difficult not
to think of a self in such a manner. Again, we exercise an object bias in
seeing the self as an object in time and pace, and we attach some essence to it
that constitutes its identity.
Third, the social order of laws, regulations and
customs also is grasped, intuited as some object. That is the subject for the
next item.
No comments:
Post a Comment