Regarding Zizek - I am by no means an expert, but it seems to me that he always has different opinions than the rest of the world, — Eugen

I have yet to hear one interesting thing this man has said or done, what work he’s done on anything, and why anyone should care about his thoughts on anything.

Like Paris Hilton, he’s famous for being famous. Has an accent and makes jokes that adolescent boys can understand — fits the image of a hip “philosopher,” so very cool and edgy.

So I guess what I’m saying is: what exactly is his view on consciousness? And why should we care?

@Eugen, you might get more responses if your post was more than "Go and research Zizek for me so I don't have to."

:up:

if I already have certain opinions — Eugen

Do you? If so, what are they? If you don't, please simply consult a search engine or chat GPT for this type of thing. We expect those who start an OP to have a grasp of the subject.



You might be confusing his persona with his work. He's written dozens of substantially philosophical books.

He's written dozens of substantially philosophical books. — Baden

He’s written books. I’ve yet to hear one of his followers explain what the substance is.

Jordan Paterson has written lots of books too, incidentally. Likewise, I’ve yet to see anything interesting there.

Which of his books have you read?

Proudly declaring your ignorance. Not a good look.

Which of his books have you read? — Baden

None by Zizek; I’ve scanned some of Petersons in Target.

For anyone into Hegel, Marx, or Lacan at the very least he can't but be interesting. I think you would be surprised if you dived in.

Proudly declaring your ignorance. Not a good look. — Jamal

I’ve heard him giving debates and interviews and lectures. Haven’t read his books, but yes — ignorant of his substance that his followers insist is there, yet never explain or give examples of. Which is exactly what you’re also doing, incidentally. Also not a great look.

For anyone into Hegel, Marx, or Lacan at the very least he can't but be interesting. I think you would be surprised if you dived in. — Baden

I have no reason to, because no one can tell me what he’s working on. But yeah, maybe it’s interesting. Maybe Peterson is interesting too — lots of people seem to be drawn to him as well. But there’s only so much time.

Don't see the connection between those two or what it has to do with anyone's "followers" but OK.

Both very popular guys. Peterson in my view is a complete charlatan, yet he’s often cited and borderline worshipped by his followers.

I see some parallels with Zizek — but he at least seems more sincere.

Try this:

https://iep.utm.edu/zizek/

I have not yet read any of his hardcore philosophy books, but as far as I can tell his interest is in subjectivity, from a psychological and political point of view, rather than in consciousness, that which is explored by analytical philosophers in terms of the concepts you’ve mentioned (qualia, emergence). When the word comes up in his works it’s probably about “false consciousness,” the Marxian concept. So it could be that he doesn’t have anything like the theory you’re imagining.

I could be wrong though. We used to have a member who was familiar with Zizek, but he’s no longer here unfortunately.

@sheps? I remember getting into Zizek because of him actually. Anyway, yes, subjectivity rather than consciousness per se because his overarching interest is in ideology (if you're in need of a one-word answer to what he works on btw @Mikie, that would be it).

I meant @Streetlight actually. I didn’t know Sheps was into Zizek. Whatever happened to Sheps eh. Never made it over here I don’t think.

Street too, of course. @Sheps had for a while the tagline "partial Zizek enthusiast" on the old PF, but, yes, he looks like he's not even a member here sadly.

For anyone into Hegel, Marx, or Lacan at the very least he can't but be interesting. — Baden

:up:

And he's a fucking delight to watch. Charming dude.

The theory seems adequately outlined in the OP of this post.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7080/an-outline-of-slavoj-zizeks-theory-on-the-structure-of-subjectivity-as-the-foundation-of-leftism

I would call it amusing PoMo tosh. It is more a phenomenological account that takes consciousness as its ground than what you may be thinking - consciousness as a target for material explanation rather than as a target for PoMo style deconstruction, employing the usual suspects of Marx and Freud.

In short, it tries to turn things into a psychodrama - the frustration of making sense of the conscious self from the inside. Confronting the paradox involved in being the Cartesian eye that sees the world and yet also seeks to see itself.

The agony of being bounced about in the realm of your own thoughts, chasing the core of being that thus becomes precisely the mysterious absence, etc.

As a pragmatist/semiotician, the psychology of this is no big deal. Brains model worlds. In order to construct an “objective” view - an Umwelt - the organism must successfully “other” itself as the “subjective” part of that viewing.

A classic example from ecological perception is landing a plane on a runway. The pilot fixes on a landing spot and just maintains a steady optic flow.



So a sense of self emerges from the process of becoming the still centre of a world in smooth predictable motion. You and your target are one. Two halves of the psychological equation. The wider world is likewise reduced to a continuous flow. The brain is modelling reality in a cleanly divided fashion which is not a model of the world, but a model of us in the world as the world’s still and purposeful centre, with the world then passing by in a smooth and predictable manner.

Neuroscience has caught up with psychological science as this kind of modelling relation has been captured in the maths of “Bayesian mechanics”. Anyone who wants a material explanation of consciousness only has to dip into the literature.

Ironically, PoMo exists because self-consciousness - our language-enabled narrative about being a “self” in the world - is a socially-constructed addition to the biological structure of awareness.

Francis Fukuyama’s Identity is a good account of how we have come to “other” the society that indeed constructs our selfhood at this linguistic level of thought. Since Rousseau and the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment’s pragmatic model of humanity, the relation between the “authentic” self and our outer “social mask” has been turned into a popular culture psychodrama. Via Marx and Freud.

The pilot landing the plane must see beyond the conventionality of just flying down a tunnel of even motion and thus feeling at one with the world … while they also stand apart from that world by being able to impose their will on that world.

It is essential that they are both at one with the world of the collective mind - move smoothly through everyday society - yet also permanently tense, angsty, unfulfilled, etc, because they are also necessarily standing apart from that everyday society as its critic and frustrated “other”.

The Peircean semiotic approach to mind explains why things have to be divided so that they can be united - as the modeller that is then in a modelling relation with a world. But PoMo based its deconstruction on (its version) of Saussurean semiotics.

Dichotomies are made paradoxes. And the paradoxical is what can pretend to be philosophy - a problem of logical argument - while actually just being a cultural psychodrama industry. A brand of modern entertainment.

Thank you for your complex answer! But that's exactly my problem: I'm not equipped to understand such a complex thing you wrote. This is why I keep it so simple. Is there a way to give me some simple answers to these questions?

1. Is consciousness fundamental for Zizek? (I guess not)

2. If it is not fundamental, can it be 100% reduced to the most fundamental properties of reality or does it have properties irreducible to its constituents?

3. Does Zizek really have another successful alternative to the classic fundamental vs weak/strong emergence model?

Thank you!

Kale, again. Despite being surrounded by bullshit, both literal and figurative, kale can have a place on the plate. Just wash it first.

There's more ways to view the world than mere Peircean semiotics. (Thumb nose, sniffle, pull shirt)

Existence is irreducibly complex. So seeking something simpler than that is a fool’s mission.

But 1), I’m just going off @absoluteaspiration’s OP which gives what looks to be an interested commentator’s clear account of Zizek’s thesis. Read that. It would seem clear that he treats it as fundamental in the phenomenological sense. Our minds and experience is the place where all inquiry must start.

As a Peircean, I agree with that too. The “objective” material world is as much a useful idea as our notion of a separate subjective realm. Inquiry starts beyond this critical demarcation of our experience.

And 2) a semiotic or Peircean approach to the issues - which is now the respectable position in the material science of biology and neurology - says that the whole idea of “100% reduction to material cause” is the reductionist delusion. The foolish attempt to make the existence too simple.

You can’t get the true causal logic of reality until you understand why reductionism is flawed … even if usefully simple for performing everyday mechanical tasks.

Then 3) if Zizek is talking phenomenology, and you are wanting to talk about conventional physicalism, such a question about reductionism vs holism become apples and oranges, or chalk and cheese.

If you really want to talk about theories of emergence, then again, no reductionist account of that can be adequate - weak or strong. The first is eliminative, the second is dualistic.

To reach the giddy metaphysical heights of true emergentism, you have to go full-strength pansemiosis. That is where Peirce’s psychological model of pragmatic reason is turned around to be the triadic relation by which a reality could construct itself.

But that’s another story.

(Thumb nose, sniffle, pull shirt) — Banno

Shits pants.

Some meat for the bones of the OP:

fragments of consciousness
A thread about Zizek and Chalmers.

A thread about Zizek and Chalmers. — Banno

Deconstructionism vs quantum Cartesianism. Sounds like an even match. :lol:

Brains model worlds. In order to construct an “objective” view - an Umwelt - the organism must successfully “other” itself as the “subjective” part of that viewing. — apokrisis

This starts with the very first organism, doesn't it? I mean, it won't *know* that in the sense that humans do (not having a brain) - but the differentiation of self from other is fundamental to organic life, is it not? What's within, and outside, the membrane?

This starts with the very first organism, doesn't it? — Wayfarer

Yep. Hence pansemiosis and not panpsychism. The Peircean view is grounded in the irreducible triadicity of the modelling relation and not the broken dualism of Cartesian representationalism, let along the dullard monoticity of the lumpen physicalist.

There are many views. Only one survives the tests of metaphysical reason and best scientific practice.

Good to see you back!

Just passing if I have any sense. :cool:

So a sense of self emerges from the process of becoming the still centre of a world in smooth predictable motion. You and your target are one. — apokrisis

Perhaps you can also comment on the self in relation to the community, as something like the way a body is held responsible.

Just passing if I have any sense. :cool: — apokrisis

I can relate.