Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Zizek's Inimitable Take on Mauvaise Foi

Expand Messages
  • Jim
    Mary, Thank you for your last two posts which, as usual, give me plenty to think about. I now realize that your use of the word `reason follows Hegel fairly
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary,

      Thank you for your last two posts which, as usual, give me plenty to think about.

      I now realize that your use of the word `reason' follows Hegel fairly closely: It is much more that the virtue of rationality; it is the forward movement of thought (particularly speculative thought) as it accommodates what has gone before and expands it into something new.

      Zizek on Sartre is an intoxicating mix. In some ways I think Zizek distorts Sartre, as Sartre was against the psychoanalytic approach (consider what he wrote in the `bad faith' section you gave the link to), whilst Zizek very much endorses the psychoanalytic approach of Lacan.

      Perhaps Sartre's idea of the fear of freedom was partly the idea of the fear that each of us is potentially a mad person, and the dividing line between being in control and being out of control is paper thin.

      Arguably we have moved on from Kant and his distinction between the empirical self and the noumenal self. I certainly have a more naturalistic account of the self than Kant. I think I am the human animal Jim Stuart who is both an object in the physical world and a subject of experience of that physical world.

      I agree I cannot take a fully objective view of reality. I cannot fully take up the "view from nowhere" as there is always a part of me, a blind spot, behind the lens. Thomas Nagel in his book "The View form Nowhere" offers a good account of the two poles of human experience – the objective point of view and the subjective point of view.

      Perhaps Sartre would say that by taking up a more naturalistic view of myself, I am just attempting to escape my radical freedom, and to think of myself as a human animal is to descend into a type of bad faith.

      However I hold on to Sartre's idea that I am radically free to choose my path through life and to choose the sort of person I become.

      Jim
    • Mary
      ... distorts Sartre, as Sartre was against the psychoanalytic approach (consider what he wrote in the `bad faith section you gave the link to), whilst Zizek
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:

        > Zizek on Sartre is an intoxicating mix. In some ways I think Zizek
        distorts Sartre, as Sartre was against the psychoanalytic approach
        (consider what he wrote in the `bad faith' section you gave the link
        to), whilst Zizek very much endorses the psychoanalytic approach of
        Lacan.

        Hello Jim,

        Zizek does seem to distort a particular philosopher's oeuvre but often offers a different perspective on some of that philosopher's specific ideas. He also interprets one philosopher through another thinker. For example he reads Hegel through Lacan. I wouldn't say Sartre is opposed to the psychoanalytic approach since in several places he describes B&N as a existential psychoanalysis. I see him more specifically opposed to Freudian structures of consciousness but not to a psychoanalytical approach in general.

        Mary
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.