Just the other day, someone responded to my last post (here) and made a good point in regards to following the status quo in academia. For example, …
— i’m going to add another comment, as I’ve read this linked.
This won’t be a point for point reply, because as the title of my blog might evidence, I’m really just walking my dog and then voice dictating my thoughts. I imagine this will be a more generalized response to what I have gotten from the presentation of various points.
I have peppered throughout my blog here that much of the points I make I feel are either missed or glossed over by many philosophical readers. The most significant point that I’m making concerns what I am calling The Two Routes.
The two routes indicate ones orientation upon things. One can search for the two routes through this blog but also perhaps online to find a couple papers I have written and maybe one or two books that concerns this point of “the two routes”.
I feel, and I have found, that when I get into a discussion with someone either about their ideas as I am commenting on them, or about my ideas, as they are commenting upon mine, a fundamental confusion arises because of a failure to understand this basic principle from which I see philosophy arising as an activity.
And the confusion arises around the two routes. Much of the time if a person does not understand this basic concept, then often enough they pretty much give me critique that I have already answered. The fundamental issue between us is this failure. For, again, often what I find myself routinely encountering is that people will give me arguments about what I’m saying that I’ve already considered that the two routes is an answer for.
This strikes me rather odd, and Kierkegaard addresses this same oddity in his experience through his works. It strikes me as if the person that is commenting upon my statements and discussion and my points, basically thinks I’m dumb. It feels this way to me because I routinely get the same rebuttals, the same kind of arguments, the same references to various authors and philosophers, the same anecdotal evidence, as though they are new points of dispute.
It is this repetition in rebuttals against ￼the various proposals that I put forth￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ that makes me ask myself if the people that are commenting, have not actually started thinking, or if they are merely reiterating ideas that other people came up with.
I don’t mean this as an insult. I mean this in so much as it feels to me as if people think I haven’t done my research. It feels as if they insult me by assuming I could not have already considered that rebuttal.
It is really odd. It is an odd and strange experience. And the way that I explain it, from the years of encountering this all over the place with many many people, is that they are not comprehending the basic position upon which my statements gain meaning. I see this less as a problem of being able to define or describe my argumentative position, and more about what is already informing them as to what we are involved with.
I shall try again to elucidate the significance of orientation upon things. ￼
Bobby brings up my reference to Kierkegaard. Particularly the “either/or￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼”.
It is interesting to me with Kierkegaard and discussing this philosopher with others because I have to ask my counterpart in discussion if indeed they have thought about what Kierkegaard is saying, or if they are just reiterating what he is saying. Eventually it seems the question always comes up for me about my worthy opponent: Are they merely scooping out semantic clauses from barrels of Kirkegaardian volumes, or, have they really understood what he is saying? In the Heideggerian sense: have they begun to think?
My point is specifically in line and resonates with what Kierkegaard is saying, which is, there is no argument to be made about what Kierkegaard is saying once one understands what he is talking about.
This is enigmatic, and indicates exactly what I mean by the two routes, which Kierkegaard spoke about using different terms.
For, many philosophers will read the statement I just put down as if I am making a challenge, as though I am saying that either Kierkegaard means this, or Kirkegaard means that￼, and this is not what I’m saying.
What I’m saying is that indeed Kierkegaard can be read as though he’s making an argument, as though he is challenging one to come up with an opinion, dredge up subjective meaning and experience which find Holes or weaknesses in Kierkegaard’s￼ points￼￼. Indeed there is a mode of philosophy which orients itself in this way￼. And then there is another route of reading Kierkegaard where the argument that Kierkegaard puts forth merely verifies the situation that I am calling the two routes.
The situation is ironic, And , Either this irony must resolve to subjective real semantics, or it must resolve to the truth of the situation that everyone already knows, or what Harman says is what we already rely upon. . The argument which appears in this organization of discourse arises in to knowledge along the two routes. And any argument which would rebut this, necessarily falls again into the two routes philosophical ￼description￼￼.￼￼
As to my original point: My question has to do with a deeper philosophical strata which has to do with How Lacan psychoanalysis has more to do with Philosophy. than it does with actual psychology. Part of what I was commenting upon Bobby’s original post was that people do not make the distinction, and many people might confuse what is philosophically sound with what is psychologically correct.
My point is that psychology often has very little to do with what seems philosophically sound. That’s really the point I was making.
Indeed I love Zizek and pretty much anything he has to say I mostly agree with; some of his more political conclusions, eh, i’m not always so sure. As well, I think Lacan and Hegel are fabulous; but at the same time they are philosophically reasonable proposals that have next to nothing to do with what is actually occurring ￼Psychologically. Or, they are only speaking of psychology, and not talking about what is actually occurring in the situation of mental health. ￼ That is, they are talking about idealist notion, rather than encountering what is right in front of them. ￼
Now, this is not to say that I don’t think there’s should be some sort of meeting ground between them, But I am saying that if somebody is looking for some mental health solutions, often enough there is such a gaping chasm between what we regularly understand as Philosophy. and what we regularly understand as psychology, and then another gaping hole laying still between mental health, such that if people approach to psychology or philosophy in a certain way, they have a great chance of being misleading themselves and digging them a problem of mental health that will most likely only lead to more problems￼.￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ ￼￼￼