One More Z/P Goodie: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time

On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time

On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time
— Read on iambobbyy.com/2019/04/27/on-slavoj-zizek-and-jordan-peterson-nature-culture-and-the-displacement-of-time/

It appears that the people who really do use their thinking skills took a little longer for their comments. Here is another goodie. Bobby gets a little deeper into the various philosophical authorial substrates, and a couple play by plays from the debate.

*

Bobby points out one of the significant parts of the debate that I forgot about; namely, that Peterson definitely sees a kind of progress of history, sees history as a ground outside of human cognition, and then that cognition indeed is able to perceive this ground and make analyses of it. Then; Zizek’s rebuttal to this kind of suggestion is, basically, that though it is possible to perceive some sort of progressing lineage, the lineage itself is articulated at the same time as these articulations disrupt the continuity of the scheme, and at that, at a notably random times.

Bobby has a better version of what they actually said, and then goes into the various philosophical ideas around this idea, for example, Derrida’s trace and erase.

*

I Am digging his approach, but I depart from Bobby’s analysis in a couple of ways.

1) I am not sure that there is any argument that can be made which overcomes the presentation inherent of the debate. And, what I mean by this is that when we understand, say, Derrida, then there is a further development philosophically that shows us that there is no “proper truth”, As though By virtue of what Derrida proposed the nature of human existence demands that there is no historical ground that human beings can cognitively know in the manner Peterson stakes his position. I describe this particular situation and I am indicating right here some of my earlier posts, perhaps from a year or two ago; I will not rehash them here. If we understand Derrida, then much of what he says is like the wind — “the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth…”

2) It is sufficient to say, that the argument (as a form) has only a particular bearing upon truth, and that Francois Laruelle’s non-philosophy has basically disrupted the idea that there is some sort of unity of truth that human beings can be suspended within to thereby exist in a argumentative reality. The suspension is itself, as I say, real, but not true.

In my work, I try to show how this particular method, this particular way of coming by or upon reality, that I call the “conventional method”, is but one manner, The One Route of the Two Routes. Further, these two routes do not further indicate a “reasonable or rational” route as opposed to and “irrational” route, but that this kind of argumentative way of establishing truth is indeed one “rational’ manner of coming upon objects. The routes are mutually exclusive in a non-philosophical manner, not complimentary as the early 20th century Existentialists would want people to believe: Belief is required first for the compliment to be realized.

In short, I am saying that all Bobby really does is kind of lean on supporting what Zizek is reputed to argue in relation to a traditional lineage of authorial representation. And that’s ok.

And –

My take is that there is no reduction of this sort possible once we understand what Laruelle is saying; and indeed, this is what I think Zizek was relying upon, as it indeed accounts for why he did not plow into Peterson.

My position is that these two men represent The Two Routes upon objects. These routes do not further reconcile to another unitive, and a singular route. And this is to say that what the debate shows is that these two routes function together without necessarily reducing to either, nor to another further unity.

Indeed Petersons argument is valid by the mere fact that people — regardless of what argument I want to make to pronounce upon such ‘other people’ — indeed can and do experience and encounter reality in exactly the way that Peterson is philosophically describing in his solution. And that this particular way, or route, is not false by virtue of the fact that I may come up with an argument against what they are saying. These people are not wrong or somehow have some sort of invalid way of understanding the truth of reality. The way they (those who understand an objectively knowable history) understand it is indeed True. And this truth, while perhaps in communication with me nevertheless does not fall into falsity due to my points, nor theirs due to mind. And, our existence is not relative nor reductionary to either that or this. It is true. Period.

Objects do not require my acknowledgment or permission to be true, or otherwise have or hold truth.

Also,

And whether or not Peterson understands technically what is going on philosophically in this ‘larger’ sense, Zizek nevertheless does understand and that is why (I submit) he didn’t plow into Peterson about his ignorance, to show how ignorant Peterson might be upon these philosophical intricacies and subtleties.

(See my earlier post about what Peterson might actually be involved with.)

We can find evidence everywhere in his talks and writings that Zizek Understands what I’m talking about: when he talks about “naïve”, he is talking about that particular kind of existence which does not answer nor even fall into the category of the philosophy he proposes by his analyses as a sort of categorical imperative. The ‘common people’ do not answer to his kind of philosophy, and indeed exist outside of it in an essential sense, even to the extent that those people’s reality (truth) has nothing to do with what analysis he is making upon them. This is the nature of his philosophy and it forms a foundational ground that most people seem to miss or are unable to reconcile with their experience.

*

If you are interested in The exploration of the two routes, please check out The Philosophical Hack: The concluding unscientific post-script to event, by Cedric Nathaniel.

It is crazy inexpensive.

11 Comments

  1. This is a well thought out response. Though I would say I wasn’t just trying to speak of the traditional lineage of authorial representation of nature and culture. I am also trying to point out the infinite contingent representations one could have upon a subject’s interpretation of nature through their own cultural history, as it unfolds through their own experience of time (whether it be Peterson’s take on nature / culture, or Rousseau’s, etc.). I chose to use Rousseau because his ideas between nature and culture (and its paradox) was best suited to highlight such problem of time.

    By the way, I did not forget about your book! But school is kicking my ass and will continue to do so until mid June. I will try to read it ASAP! I also have Laruelle’s Non-Philosophy sitting on my shelf for quite some time, but I think you have just reignited my motivations on trying to finish it!

    1. Yep. I get it. I’m on break between semesters. So I’m trying to finish Part 2. But during class, it’s only class reading and writing pretty much. (And some blogging).

      Yeah. I love your analyses Becuase they are different than mine. it helps me learn. And, like I said, your stuff shows that thinking is happening.. Not just any thinking though 🤘🏾

    2. …. I suppose the point I am making and commenting about your comment is from a counselors perspective. I am setting to be a counselor😄. And counseling is my solution to particular philosophical problem.

      But I am largely in the continental corner. Philosophically speaking. Yet There is much to be ssaid about what psychoanalysis is really talking about and the philosophy s that use psychoanalysis as a sort of platform from which to make other philosophical arguments.

      I am not saying, really, that your analysis is incorrect as much is I am saying that it represents a particular route, as I Call it.

      The thing is is when one is concerned becomes the individual human being then there is a hierarchy of nature that human beings are involved with. And I do not know if I am necessarily equating what I am calling “the two routes“ to philosophy and counseling, btw.

      But I am saying that philosophically Zizek has addressed the non-philosophical issue that Laruelle eximplfies. Whatever might be the regular common people of the world, whatever philosophy I am coming to conclusions around with authors ideas and etc., The regular people of the world have nothing to do with under with what I understand as true philosophically. And I mean this in the most unapologetically manner. Literally, Jordan Peterson and his hierarchical form of nature, so to speak, is true. It is true, without any equivocation.

      And so the juxtaposition of these two figures in this debate, in my view, shows something about what is occurring.

      Because from a counseling standpoint I understand what Peterson. is saying. He saying that the world is fucked up because people are applying large solutions to large order conceptualization without first understanding the issue that is presented in themselves first.

      And from a very practical on the ground standpoint , I tend to agree with this. Even as I’m not a Freudian or a psycho analysis in my orientation upon mental health. For example, in the debate Peterson talks about “confrontive therapy“ and how this has been shown to be most effective for problems. One can never be sure about studies, if we learned anything about science, especially in psychology, is that studies are biased and people will point to studies to prove anything that they want to prove it, even as they might remain open minded to its bias or its shortcomings. All people have to say is that “this study shows this, but here are the limitations“ and then people just use that study despite what limitations they might talk about. There are also studies that suggest that not confronting the source of trauma is often just as effective in overcoming the trauma than confrontation therapy. So I have my issues so ffar as method.

      1. You definitely know more about Zizek and Laruelle than I do. This is why I learn a lot from the things you say.

        As for myself, I can only speak from a history through Husserl, Heidegger, and Derrida, namely from the things I know. For the most part, I also agree with Peterson’s views on hierarchy. But I am also trying to show how such claim arises by moving through time and how we can’t fully predict the future of nature and culture. This is why I said it is “possible” that we might arrive at a society where we can supplement nature, hierarchies, etc. as what Marx would probably say. At the same time, it is also possible that we never arrive at such state. The future, like nature, is anterior to us and it is always to come. This future of culture (nature)—whatever “culture” could mean for each individual via their history—is constantly unfolding as you are reading this text, going to school, work, living your life, existing, growing old, etc. We are always living through time, and we interpret nature (culture) differently as we live through such time (the deferral that Derrida speaks).

        The argument can be as simple as saying how I cringe at my younger self every time I think of the stupid stuff that I did because I am interpreting my past through another time—a “contemporary time” that is not only anterior to that historical moment via a temporal gap (i.e. between my young and older self) but it is also this contemporary time that is constantly moving towards the future when I conceive of such thought. This future is what Derrida sometimes refer as “death” (not the same as being-toward-death in the Heideggerian sense). I think it is also why Derrida quotes Hamlet who said, “time is out of joint”.

        In regards to psychological studies, most of them reminds me of David Hume’s problem of induction.

        Anyways, memes are life. I’m glad you liked it LOL. I never knew you are becoming a counselor. I always thought you were a PhD student or something. Continental philosophy is the best! 😀

      2. I have always felt that one of the issues with the postmoderns like Derruda and Deleuze And such, is that they speak as though their thoughts are actually reflecting true objects, things that are true of the world. Like I said, as though now they’ve talked about the nature of subjectivity all of a sudden all subjects occur in that manner. The issue that I have is that if I truly am understanding what Derrida, for example, is saying then that means that I’m not understanding what he saying. And then I can further compound the issue by going about trying to tell people what he is saying as though it should apply to them, as if my subjectivity has some sort of privilege and knowledge to be able to know of this other person’s nature of subjectivity. I think that is an inherent contradiction that brings about certain consequences in philosophy.

        Btw. Consequences that I feel that Badiou, Laruelle and Zizek try to handle.

      3. The contradiction / problem on subjectivity—especially on language—precedes Derrida and Husserl to people like Immanuel Kant. Of course, it is easy for me to make this claim on Kant after reading Derrida and Husserl (the same problem that I tried to show via Rousseau)—even if Kant had never thought of this (that the in-itself is language). In my opinion, this is one of the main ideas Derrida tries to introduce via his deconstruction on Husserl and Heidegger.

        I think this is why you see Derrideans like Avital Ronell say things like, “if you can communicate, you would not need to communicate”. Regardless, I am not going to go in depth because it will take too long (I have to introduce how Derrida’s relationship with Heidegger). In short, by sharing your interpretation of X, you are not perpetuating the issue further. Instead, you are sharing / communicating the “impossible” and it is this impossible which establishes communication. I believe Jean-Luc Nancy talks about this quite a bit (I might be wrong).

        I think Badiou, Laruelle, and Zizek are still caught in this problem, even if they reject it while disagreeing with each other. The only person who attempts to break out of this is Meillassoux who rejects all the above in various ways (though he agrees with Badiou most). Overall, I think Derrida, Badiou, Zizek, Heidegger, Laruelle, and Meillassoux are attacking the same problem in very different ways which makes them all interesting.

      4. I think you are more well read of Husserl and Derrida too probly.

        I don’t think M gets us anywhere. I think it’s cool that he coined the term correlationalism, but I don’t think it’s something that we can get out of in any way: or, if you read part one of the philosophical hack then you can read about my opinions on that.

        I think the correlation is indeed an identifier of what the human being is. I do not think a move of discourse can somehow dispel what I see as a fundamental fact of being human.

        But, if you read the philosophical Hack book , I like to think that I laid out my point Kinda clearly hopefully. lol

      5. … I mean. I definitely divide up what one might call “stages”: there is the Kant to Wittgenstein. Stage. The Witt to postmodern. There’s the post-post-modern. And the repeat. I think we are stuck in correlation. And I’m pretty sure there are only three ways out of it, all of which are merely ways of denying the situation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s